Washington Post reports witchhunt by evolutionists.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Percy. I see a somewhat vast mechanism of a coordinated smear campaign, typified by hysteria and an uncalled for witchhunt. In other words, since we cannot successfully refute the paper/message, let's go after the messenger in the vilest manner possible.I suspect a good many Americans that read these articles (I think the Wash. Post article was front-page) will see it the same way.

If the halls of science are stacked with people like those that smeared Sternberg, then it's clearly not objective enough, at least in those circles, to be trusted in my opinion.Writing books and publishing articles and the ideas of ID wherever open and fairmindedness prevails, whether in evo journals or not, is what I would recommend, but I would probably advise anyone of not pursuing submitting to evo journals considering the way the evolutionist community reacted to Sternberg.Then again, I said the same thing before Sternberg, that this community would react with such closemindedness and what I feel is a pretty ideological withhunt, if they would even allow such a paper to be considered.I would have been happy to have been proven wrong, but as it turns out.....

Here's where you are wrong, Holmes, and I can prove it to you. You admit that controversy is good to move science forward and introduce new ideas.And you admit that the reaction was wrong to the paper. It was characterized by bad behaviour.But you don't seem to have put the 2 together and fall back on accusing the IDers of mere whining or something.Think about the mindset you are in. Is that really truth you are trying to spread?What we have is the evolutionist community not willing to allow the controversy in normal parameters, but engaging in a total withchunt false accusing a scientist and deliberately colluding together to try to smear his name and ruin his career.is that the kind of thing you think is good, holmes?You see the problem is that controversy could be good if evos played by fair rules and weren't so screwed up that they cannot act like decent human beings in this matter, and moreover, those not participating are so clouded in judgment they cannot see that their fellow comrades have done anything wrong.Your reaction and statements are typical of communities characterized by ideological indoctrination. You don't even see that you are holding to a contradiction.You admit: And: And use this to then justify the bad behaviour: You basically are then saying that IDers should expect a witchunt, and that it is OK. Quit whining.It seems to have gone right over your head that the point of the matter is controversy should not consist of personal attacks on someone's career, but a reasoned defense and attack of scientific ideas.Instead, you hold the contradictory position of admitting withhunts are wrong, and that witchhunts are good.