DeGrasse is one of those pompous, condescending, insufferable new atheist "Science" worshipers that imagines he shouldn't have to actually defend what he asserts. Whately's article rightly emphasizes major flaws in the way that "Science" community operates.
In his article, Tyson points to the peer review system as if it’s a fool-proof barrier against such corruption. But what if the entire discipline has come to rest on a poor epistemological foundation? What if it’s driven by axioms with baked-in blind spots, like methodological naturalism? Peer review cannot solve such systemic issues. On the contrary, it will only perpetuate them. And while Tyson may further claim in the post that the fast track to career stardom is presenting bold, original hypotheses that challenge consensus, many scientists who question an evolutionary narrative of life’s origins would beg to differ. There is a reason why so much of the support for intelligent design remains underground: Because these scientists know that making their hesitations public could, in fact, be a fast track not to career stardom but career suicide.
