Rather to my surprise (I wrote the original post quite a while ago), I've had a response from the subject of that post: 'Scientists Anonymous'. This group was drawn to my attention by a friend who's a secondary school biology teacher, concerned that Scientists Anonymous had done a mass e-mailout to NZ teachers to promote an intelligent design article.
At the time I asked
who, exactly, are these 'Scientists Anonymous' who are behind the e-mail to schools, and why aren't they prepared to put their names to the document?
Well, I'm left none the wiser by their response:
Anonymity of this informal group is upheld in the interest of those still active in the profession, but may be reviewed in future.
Why? In NZ, having a particular religious worldview is not grounds for losing one's job (nor is it in the US -the thesis of "Expelled" notwithstanding ). However, presenting oneself as a brave maverick scientist, ignored by the mainstream, is one of the warning signs that we may be dealing with pseudoscience. So wouldn't it be better to front up, identify themselves, and present their evidence? (Their solid, peer-reviewed evidence, not articles on the Institute for Creation Research website.) After all, as E.O.Wilson has said,