Michael Egnor rises to the defense of Jonathan Wells. Readers may recall that Wells made a really stupid claim that studying antibiotic resistance in bacteria had nothing to do with evolution.
When the authors of the paper in question rejected this silly claim, Wells bent over backwards to justify his stupidity. Now Michael Egnor joins him [Dr. Wells’ Observation about the King’s Clothes].
There's one small part of that posting that really caught my eye.
The viscous personal attacks on Dr. Wells are an example. If you were a scientist, how candid about questioning the relevance of Darwinism would you be if your livelihood depended on Darwinist professors like Dr. Myers and Dr. Moran?Anyone with an IQ above 50 knows that neither PZ or I are Darwinists [Why I'm Not a Darwinist]. We have both posted numerous articles attacking adaptationism and the emphasis on natural selection as the only mechanism of evolution. We have questioned all kinds of things about the modern orthodoxy from punctuated equilibria to evo-devo.
In other words, both of us have as much of a reputation for questioning fellow evolutionists as for challenging IDiots like Wells and Egnor.
The fact that Michael Egnor cannot see this speaks volumes.