I'm not saying your argument is necessarily wrong, just that you found some of the worst possible material to support it.
I'm not saying your argument is necessarily wrong, just that you found some of the worst possible material to support it.
I never intended anyone to take the Discovery Institute paper as anything more than just a casual study of the subject (by a biased party). I certainly did not want to present it as academically rigorous on any level or as an unbiased look at the subject.
I thought that I had made this clear in my original post by using the word "study" rather than "research" or "peer-reviewed study". I really meant for it to be taken as more of a narrative account than an actual research paper. Unfortunately, it is now far too late for me to amend my original post to make this more clear.
In my defense, I typed up my post in a blaze of coffee-fueled self-righteous indignation. Mistakes tend to happen a lot when you shoot from the hip like that.