It is odd indeed that despite there being a readable difference of temporal relocations in the ambiguity of the niche occupant vs recess environmentally that any ambiguity in the FORM of a fossil vs the time it takes to form possibly influencing living form-making (given the caveat that was linked to your post above)that "scientists" continue to miss the overlaping as it circles around theoretically.
I think what he was alluding to his how certain academicians have the bad habit of allowing evidence to lead them the direction they want it go based soley on preconcieved notions. Many scientists are prone to this, whether it is malicious or unintentional, it happens. Science is supposed to be the pinnacle of objectivity, and yet, at times it is the polar opposite.
He uses fossilization as one example. It is generally an old, an antiquated paradigm that it requires millions of years for fossilization to occur. This is patently false. Aside from which, he is asking that since observation is technically a requirment for science, per its definition, isn't much of science then unscientific by its own premise, particularly those aspects that we cannot recreate through experimentation.
“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner
™ Version 4.2
