My standards are obviously far above yours, otherwise I would be posting about how nature selects from random processes to create complex, specified, super-sophisticated digital DNA codes, while I ignored the fact that the only empirically verified source for complex, specified, digital codes are intelligent designers.
DNA is not super sophisticated, unless you don’t have the basic education to understand it. It’s only As, Gs, Ts, and Cs. Pretty basic to me.
So your "standards" for science writing are that it reaches the correct (in your view) conclusion, not whether it's factually accurate along the way. That's what I thought.
“super-sophisticated digital DNA codes ...”
DNA encoding has not been demonstrated to be digital.