All the NYT story of 2006 reveals is that Picard's name is one of a number of names who are listed on the newly launched DissentFromDarwin.Org web site. You can report what the DI claims that means, but you can't elevate the claims of PR site like that to the level of a {fact} on the ground, especially given that coterminous analysis by Skip Evans of the NCSE dissecting those doubtful claims and declaring them so much horse dookie. To get that the first 100 scientists actually signed anything at all, you have to go to the facsimile of the anti-PBS ad, which exhibits the totality of what those 100 scientists put their name to. To say more than that is not only synthesis, it's demonstrably false by any reasonable objective journalistic standard.
I could have taken that same 32-word untitled statement and published a different ad with the headline, "100 Scientists Call for Rigorous Adherence to the Protocols of the Scientific Method When Reviewing the Evidence for Scientific Theories". Moreover, I daresay those 100 scientists would not have taken issue with that headline. Then if I start a PR website called RigorInScience.Org, and invite more people to sign, would I be in the clear if I asserted that the initial 100 signers put their name to the "Call for Rigor In Science Petition"? What if I called it the "Dissent From Sloppy Science" Petition, instead?
Do you think Hrafn, Fill, or ConfuciousOrnis would have accepted that equally plausible interpretation and label to the otherwise untitled 32-word statement?
|