I know how to tell good science from bad science. That's an ability aquired in more than thirty years of training. Which doesn't mean I cannot err. I have and I will again.

The sites McGrath has linked too have many aspects of bad science:
- As Claymore has already said, for instance the three apes are propaganda. Good science needs no propaganda, it convinces by facts.
- If you compare the literature (references) with the article, you'll see that all good-journal-articles (refereed journals) are cited only for marginal points. Those references cited for the vital points are 'grey literature' that is to websites or to private prints, i.e. to publications without peer review.
- I nearly completely miss what I see in good articles, namely a critical discussions of the authors conclusions and assumptions listing also the weaknesses of the own intzerpretation.
-The documentation of the data (gathering) is far from scholarly.

Nevertheless, some strong points are made though in a version lacking any signs of real competence in gathering and presenting data.

My verdict a this point: (1) That is a blunderer with good intentions, bad knowledge, and a very selective data gathering.
(2) That is a man who lacks the schooling to make his point in the correct way but nevertheless has a potentially valid point.
(3) With what I have seen I am unable so far to make up my mind between (1) and (2).

Wolfgang