Yes, and it is other Evolutionists who find these haxes because of the strict application of the scientific principle.
The hoaxes don't undermine the underlying theory and are almiost always some individual shooting for fame and glory (think Falwell of Gene Scott for Religion).
OTOH, CRIDers lie on these threads. We have exposed them time and time again. Yet, I defy you to find a single Evo post that contains either a purposeful logical fallacy or flat out lie. I can do so for CRIDers.
Now, what would be the point of that, when you'd just redefine "lie" or "fallacy".
I can point you to a thread about a "new species" of fruit fly being launched where no new species existed, nor exists now (three years later). It's a thread full of wishful thinking and hopeful expectations, but no new species was created. Just an outlandish claim--a lie, as most people understand lying. I'm sure you'd just say that "new species" does not really mean "new species" and that I need to get back to biology class.
FRevos argue in bad faith--
Any takers?
So the evolutionists are then justified because they *exposed* these hoaxes? Then they can sweep under the rug the fact that they prepetrated the hoaxes and go on to tell people what paragons of virtue and integrity they are. After all, since evolutionists have no reason to lie...wait a minute, hoaxes ARE a lie...hmmm
Please, most logical fallacies have absolutely nothing to do with formal logic. They're simply made up by the skeptical community, and anyone who's spent a significant amount of time within that community, like I have, knows exactly what I'm talking about.
That said, I'm proud to announce that those on my side of the aisle, generally do not engage in intimidation campaigns, parading about with liar lists and such.
As to your point about lying per se, I personally never try to accuse anyone of such, since intent is a quality that is extremely difficult to demonstrate. However, misrepresentation is an entirely different story, and to that end, I offer the following from a post by Ichneumon:
Yes, VESTIGIAL FEATURES do indeed provide evidence of evolution "either way", because if they linger from a common ancestor, they indicate the link to that common ancestor, and if they have been "de-selected" as you say, they also provide evidence for evolution because they leave traces of their passing, such as the fact that birds do not have teeth, but still have "broken" genes to produce teeth (which can and have been chemically triggered to produce chicks with reptile-like teeth). Even though birds have lost the teeth of their reptile ancestors, they retain clear evidence that they *did* have teeth in a distant ancestor. source
The impression here, amongst others, is that the teeth producing gene(s) were inherently avian,and that they were reptilian...both of which is incorrect.
Here's a media report:
CNN.com
and a couple of critiques:
critique
critique
For further information, the title of the research paper is:
Development of Teeth in Chick Embryos after Mouse Neural Crest Transplantations
I'll let the reader decide whether Ichneumon, lied, misrepresented, or proffered the truth.