[VadeRetro]

More on why not just any quote you can mine is valid:

. . . Unfortunately, Dr. Wells is intellectually dishonest. When I first encountered his attempts at journalism, I thought he might be a woefully deficient scholar because his critiques about peppered moth research were full of errors, but soon it became clear that he was intentionally distorting the literature in my field. He lavishly dresses his essays in quotations from experts (including some from me) which are generally taken out of context, and he systematically omits relevant details to make our conclusions seem ill founded, flawed, or fraudulent. Why does he do this? Is his goal to correct science through constructive criticism, or does he a have a different agenda? He never mentions creationism in any form. To be sure, he sticks to the scientific literature, but he misrepresents it. Perhaps it might be kinder to suggest that Wells is simply incompetent, but I think his errors are by intelligent design.

Bruce Grant

Professor of Biology

College of William and Mary

Pratt Tribune Archives.

[ThinkPlease]

When seeing Medved regurgipost, I am reminded of this webpage, dissecting another Holden regurgipost, and neatly cutting him off at the ankles.

It even shows neatly how misspellings can be propogated. Fun for the whole family!

[Phaedrus]

. . . Unfortunately, Dr. Wells is intellectually dishonest. When I first encountered his attempts at journalism, I thought he might be a woefully deficient scholar because his critiques about peppered moth research were full of errors... and yadda yadda from Bruce Grant. No substance, no evidence, just ad hominem attack. Irrelevant, Vade.