Comment: So she's disingenuous *and* a useful idiot. Nice.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The evidence says otherwise (see in situ)

So she's disingenuous *and* a useful idiot. Nice.

The first paragraph suggests that she's a "'useful idiot' being used to undermine the Christian faith." That's just a few paragraphs above where the author expresses skepticism about her ever *really* having being attacked by creationists.

She's doing science the way science should be done, looking at what she found, and doing it carefully and methodically rather than jumping to conclusions. That's why other researchers who are deeply skeptical about the result are taking her seriously, because she's doing actual science.

What the young earthers seem to want her to do is to to jump to a conclusion not based on what the research itself would justify, but based on a certain interpretation of a religious text. What they wish she would do, and insult her for not doing, wouldn't be science, and would guarantee that her research would not be taken seriously by anyone in the scientific community.