Dan again prefers to indulge in distractions.

You know exactly what I mean. For the benefit of others though, who might mistake your shill for the genuine coin....

People like Wieland whose "solid understanding of science" moves them to not practise their *highly in demand* and *intrinsically humanitarian* profession, preferring instead to be a PR flack for a creationist magazine-marketing operation. Pepople whose aforementioned understanding has not actually led them to active roles in actual science. Wieland's "understanding" stopped dead at the end of undergrad and has not advanced.

Plimer very clearly exposed the common tactics of Wieland and "his sort". Their credibility was dust long before, but 1994 was clearly the last time any could expect a genuinely distinguished scientist to regard them worth time. Wieland has a lot of deliberate misinformaton and tacit support of others in his organisaton to retract before any progress can be made.

Safran is doing well out of showing up the whole circus and letting the blanks and ellipses contrast religious people of true personal integrity vs the circus performers. Many creationists probably don't get it.

Catch up, Dan. Real scientists are doing real work in the field of evolutionary biology and just writing stuff for creationists cannot stop that, nor be shaken by little circuses from Sarfati and friends. To make a difference, they would have to do real work, in real labs, and get it published. It is *much* easier to do what Wieland, Sarfati, Snelling, Gish, Ham et al do. Easier but not admirable.

Rusty