This is really a response to a comment in a post below, but what I wanted to say is more widely applicable to any darwinist who might end up here.
What really frustrates me about "the debate" is the attempt to suppress dissenting opinion that is being carried out in the name of objectivity and science - the wrangling over one guy's Ph.D. is only the tip of the iceberg. There is the offering to pay the Smithsonian to back out of an arrangement; blackballing and abusing journal editors who dare to publish articles that don't toe the line; (in the case of Eugenie Scott, NCSE, the demonstrated) writing of misleading and inaccurate articles; the re-presentation of already refuted arguments (in New Scientist). How is so-called academic freedom going to be defended by thousands of scientists - 95%+ of whom don't actually know the details of what's happening - emailing people in authority to get them to exert pressure on one or two scientists? What affect will that have on them? And will this pressure make it more or less likely that the truth will become apparent? What would happen to you if you found yourself the target of this sort of witchhunt? Would it improve the standard of your work?
Take a look at what's going on. I know it's really hard, but try and detach yourself from where you are arguing from, and look at what's happening from a neutral standpoint. Look at the rhetoric on both sides. Look at what people who hadn't even seen it were saying about "Privileged Planet" - can't you see that this is the exact opposite of the freedom which you claim to love? If you think the attitude of people who suppress the truth is undesirable, then why are you trying to become like one of them?
