The following
section appears in the article,
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism:
QUOTE(Critical responses)
Critical responsesThe
Scientific Dissent From Darwinism document has been widely criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to previous appeals to authority produced by other creationists, the professional expertise of those listed is not always apparent and is alleged to be deficient.[27] Also, the professional affiliations and credentials that are claimed for some of the signatories has been questioned. Finally, there appear to be many who appear on the list who are not firmly committed to the agenda advanced by the
Discovery Institute, and who have been misled into signing or who have changed their minds.
I have posted the following
new section on Moulton's talk page:
QUOTE(Critical Response)
Critical ResponseThe
Scientific Dissent From Darwinism article has been narrowly criticized on several different grounds. First, similar to related articles produced by the same group of allied editors, the professional expertise of the dominant clique of editors is not always apparent and is suspected to be deficient in scientific rigor and journalistic ethics. Also, the professional affiliations and credentials for some of the dominant editors is open to question. Finally, there appear to be many who recently participated in the substantial improvement of these articles who are not committed to the agenda of the WikiClique on Intelligent Design, and who have at times been treated abusively or who have changed their minds about trying to work with the main group of editors on these interlinked articles.
Moulton (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)