Why did you think that we "might be interested in" a severely flawed critique by a guy who admits that he's "not even a scientist, merely a journalist"?
And is it too much to ask that once in a while you post something from a *science* journal, instead of stuff like this from a crank who runs an "Alternative Science" [sic] website defending "psychics" like the fraud Uri Gellar?
And while we're at it, why do so many of the creationist "sources" turn out to be really fringe folks like this?
Good idea! I'll try to do that a little more. Would you like to review the material and my commentary before I post them? I wouldn't want to put the wrong twist on an important discovery. I should know by now that every new discovery supports evolution, right? Just not your grandpappy's version of it.