The ostensible gold standard of scientific reliability, peer review, looks more like fool's gold in many cases. Reforming it will require an overhaul, not just corrections.
The leftist agenda of most science journalists forces them to oppose conservatism, no matter how twisted their logic becomes. Why would anyone trust them about Darwinism?
More evidence that institutional scientists, journal editors and reporters live in an echo chamber that betrays their ideals of unbiased knowledge generation.