David P. Mindell (coauthor of [14]), wrote, "I am appalled that the Discovery Institute would find anything in any of my work to support their unscientific views. I am of course familiar with them as a source of misinformation and misunderstanding about nature and propaganda for anti-science education legislation."Michael Bellesiles was in the wrong racket. You don't write Discovery-style crap from a tenured professor position. You quit your day job, join an activist war-room like the Discovery Institute, and then you can write propaganda all day long.
These 44 scientific publications represent important lines of evidence and puzzles that any theory of evolution must confront, and that science teachers and students should be allowed to discuss when studying evolution.And the bibliography further states:
The publications are not presented either as support for the theory of intelligent design, or as indicating that the authors cited doubt evolution.Mindell is "appalled that the Discovery Institute found anything in any of [his] work to support their unscientific views." Is there more to this bibliography? From what was posted I don't see where the Discovery Institute cites Mindell's work as support of their views.
Is the Discovery Institute saying anything other than Mindell's work "may considerably complicate the use of mtDNA as a historical marker in evolutionary studies."
It seems to me the Discovery Institute is merely citing Mindell's work as one of 44 that "represent[s] important lines of evidence and puzzles that any theory of evolution must confront, and that science teachers and students should be allowed to discuss when studying evolution. "