Darwinist bigotry goes off the deep end

In the worst example of intolerance that I have ever seen on the Internet, a Darwinist blogger who was criticizing another website's article cut off his nose to spite his face by refusing to post a link to that article in an effort to minimize generating more traffic at that article's website! An introduction to an article on the blog of Mark Chu-Carroll (aka MarkCC) said,

Today's bit of basics is inspired by that bastion of shitheaded ignorance, Dr. Michael Egnor. In part of his latest screed (a podcast with Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute), Egnor discusses antibiotic resistance, and along the way, asserts that the theory of evolution has no relevance to antibiotic resistance, because what evolution says about the subject is just a tautology. (I'm deliberately not linking to the podcast; I will not help increase the hit-count that DI will use to promote it's agenda of willful ignorance.) (emphasis added)

Furthermore, not that it matters, but in over a year of being a frequent visitor to the DI's Evolution News & Views website, I have never seen that website advertise its hit-count statistics or make them available to readers by means of a "Site Meter" (this blog has a Site Meter icon at the bottom of the left sidebar) or something similar.

In the introduction to a later post, MarkCC tries to turn Dr. Egnor into a kind of non-person by not even mentioning him by name but by referring to him as "the Discovery Institute's most recent addition" (however, the post does later mention Egnor by name):

So the Discovery Institute's most recent addition has chosen to reply to my post about tautologies. (Once again, I'm not linking to him; I will not willingly be a source of hits for the DI website when they're promoting dangerous ingorance like this.)

This is a new low on the scales of censorship and quote mining -- trying to make it hard for readers to see the contexts of quotations or paraphrases. One of the problems here is that Egnor has posted several recent articles on the Evolution News & Views website, so it is not apparent which particular article -- if any -- MarkCC is referring to. What kind of credibility does MarkCC have, or should he have?

Not even the legendary Darwinist bigot PZ Myers has practiced this kind of censorship. PZ, who has called this blog a "bottomless pit of stupidity," posted a link to it, causing my visitor count to spike to about 250 in a single day --- by far the highest number I have ever recorded (I normally get 30-60 visitors a day and the second-highest number I have seen was 80).

One would think that MarkCC's intolerance and censorship would be too much even for other Darwinists, but no. In a post on Panda's Thumb, Mike Dunford praises the second of MarkCC's preceding posts.

Anyway, Egnor's view that Darwinism is overrated as a research tool is not unusual among professionals in biology-related fields -- similar views by such professionals are expressed here, here, here, and here. And why can't scientists just see Darwinism as a kind of hokey concept that is not necessarily true but that is nonetheless sometimes useful in guiding research? As an engineer, I know that engineers often use analytical methods that are non-intuitive and often even counter-intuitive -- for example, imaginary numbers and complex-plane vectors are used in the analysis of AC circuits, and in the Joukowski transformation of conformal mapping, rotating cylinders are used to determine the aerodynamics of fixed-wing airfoils.