[bondserv]

You know what creationist sites do to scientific quotes (I know you do, because you've been on these threads forever). If they are that dishonest with quotes, what gives me any hope they'd treat articles any differently? By their fruits you will know them.

Do like I do and no one will get hurt. Consider only the raw scientific data and spit out the bones of interpretation. We all have fully functioning brains.

[Junior]

Post a link to the original article. Once it goes through the filter of a creationist site, the result is the exact opposite of what was originally published. Like I said, I've seen what creationist sites do with quotes, why should I trust them with articles?

[Alacarte]

Do like I do and no one will get hurt. Consider only the raw scientific data and spit out the bones of interpretation. We all have fully functioning brains.

I'm impressed if you feel you can understand scientific biology data without interpretation from the scientific community.

If you just mean not letting the data filter through a third party first, like the media, or god forbid an ID website, then I agree fully.

Though I trust sites like scientific american, there are enough professionals that read sci-am that errors get jumped on pretty quick, and it happens all the time in their letters section.