Second verse, same as the first, from Skell

Philip Skell - whom I've dealt with before - is once again shilling for the Discovery Institute. Witness:

"I am writing -- as a member of the National Academy of Sciences -- to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory"

Problem is, the NAS - which Skell and the DI cloak their antievolutionism in ("Members and foreign associates of the National Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer") - has come to a different conclusion, for example refusing to allow the Kansas BoE to use copyrighted material because proposed standards "overemphasize controversy in the theory of evolution and distort the definition of science."

Despite the DI's spin, Skell does not speak for the NAS and his admission as a member of same was because of his chemical work, not because of his insight into evolution. As a scientist, his views are a little more relevent than those of Kurt Vonnegut and Orson Scott Card ... but only just.