[bornacatholic]

Yes, of course. We understand. Science must fake evidence sometimes. And when the fraud is exposed it is only natural to select for criticism those who uncovered the fraud. I credit that sort of behavior to evolving standards of truth.

[Ichneumon]

Yes, of course. We understand. Science must fake evidence sometimes.

This wasn't "faked evidence", since it wasn't used for or presented *as* evidence. It was just a demonstration of how the different moths have different visibility on sooty surfaces.

And when the fraud is exposed it is only natural to select for criticism those who uncovered the fraud.

It wasn't "fraud". Did you not understand the articles in the links, or did you not even bother to read them?

[Stultis]

Yes, of course. We understand. Science must fake evidence sometimes. And when the fraud is exposed

Boy, you really feel strongly about this! I'm sure you've blocked The Discovery Channel on your cable box, complained to your provider, and called all your neighbors to explain that your children are NEVER to watch nature documentaries, since they virtually always include such "fraudulent" "staged" photography or film sequences.

As if... C'mon. NO ONE takes this faux outrage seriously. It only makes you look desperate, or silly.

[Dimensio]

Science must fake evidence sometimes.

No evidence was faked here. The only fraud is on the part of the creationists who claim that there was a fraud.

[YHAOS]

"Yes, of course. We understand. Science must fake evidence sometimes."

You mean this was not so much a case of peppered moths as it was a case of salted moths?