Such a disclaimer didn't work for Michael Bellesiles. Not everything is a matter of opinion. You'd probably be embarrassed if your Morton's Demon stopped working and you could see yourself as others see you on these threads. You can pretend to be wearing the emperor's robes if you want. We don't have to pretend to be fooled.
When you paste together such a fabrication as that bibliography and represent it to the Ohio board in the manner that Meyer and cohorts did, that's lying about the state of scientific opinion. That the scientists who were cited say so should give you a clue but doesn't. He does the same thing in other places, so I'm not surprised.
From the NCSE page:
Moreover, in light of Stephen C. Meyer's declaration that the Bibliography contains publications "that raise significant challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution" — a declaration that significantly postdates the disclaimer — the sincerity of the disclaimer may be doubted.[8]Meyer continues to misrepresent even as he denies doing so. You continue to pretend not to understand. I continue to disbelieve the whole performance.
There is no science and no honesty in searching publication after publication for just the juicy quotes you want, disregarding tons and tons of totally contrary evidence, and presenting a false picture with the result. I've said it already and it's still true. Meyer is a charlatan and a cradle-robbing charlatan at that.
Placemarker;)
Science is not about opinion, it is about facts. It is the facts that contradict evolution. Scientist's opinions can differ but the facts are there for all to see. The facts discovered by these scientists disprove evolution. Whether they think so (or are willing to say so or not) is totally irrelevant. Let's take the first item on Post# 478 :
" It is widely believed that molecular data confirm morphological data when the history of groups such as the mammals is being reconstructed. Many cases exist, however, where molecules (such as proteins) give “false” or erroneous phylogenies. This paper, by a team of researchers from Japan, Germany, and Australia, demonstrates that different mitochondrial proteins can give different, and contradictory, groupings. In particular, the protein NADH dehydrogenase (ND1) places primates and rodents together as closest relatives, with ferungulates (artiodactyls + cetaceans + perisodactyls + carnivores) as more distantly related to primates -- in contradiction to most other data, which places primates and ferungulates together as closest relatives. The authors conclude that this anomalous phylogenetic grouping “is not due to a stochastic error, but is due to convergent or parallel evolution” (p. 321), suggesting that molecular evidence is not free from the confounding (historically misleading) effects known to plague other types of systematic data, such as anatomical patterns."
In plain English what the above says is that neither the genes nor anatomy supports descent of traits in the manner which evolution requires for it to be true. Evolution is a theory which claims that traits descend from previous traits of ancestor species in a tree-like manner (evolutionists are very good at crayon work and love to draw such trees). This says that the traits do not arise in such a manner and is therefore strong proof against evolution. We also need to explain what convergence is - the undeniable fact that totally unrelated species can perform the same functions even though they clearly could not have been the result of descent. This was known in the case of physical features. Now science has shown that this is also the case with genetic features. In other words, the evolutionist's hope that the genes would prove their theory true has been falsified.
Now regardless of what else these scientists might opine, this is their scientific conclusion on the facts - that genetics does not show descent. They can say a-la Darwin that in the future they will find a solution. The fact is that as of scientific knowledge right now evolutionists have been shown to be wrong. They can talk all they like but the scientific facts prove evolution wrong. Further, the evolutionists had never been able to show that convergence in physical features fits in with their theory, they hoped that examination of the genes would solve their problem, instead it has made it greater. So the trend of science has been to disprove evolutionary claims and therefore there is no reason to believe the claims of evolutionists that the 'future will prove them correct'.