Ist edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com sicher?

I've followed Ed's writings for years, since before before the Web began, when he published a little fanzine devoted to theology, Biblical criticism and the creation-vs-evolution debate. Have always found his writings to be incisive, well-researched, entertaining and clean. How anyone could knock his blog is a mystery. Read and judge for yourself.

This site is great - I don't know why it would get these negative ratings. Some of these don't even make sense for a blog to be rated low in. This has obviously been spammed which is unfortunate because Mr. Babinski is extremely informative, thorough and bright.

I have visited this site on many occasions to read what Mr. Babinski has posted. He always provides references where needed and I have never seen socially unacceptable language in any of his posts. I have no reason to think that he is anything less than trustworthy or reliable. This man has my utmost respect and admiration and I strongly believe that the negatives he has been getting are coming from the religious who choose to be offended both by his lack of faith and by the scientific facts he posts that refute their outrageous claims. I should like to see any of his posts that are unsafe for children, that are not trustworthy, that are not reliable and that violate privacy.

As far as I know my site is a safe ***** site. It's a subdomain of ***** with no pop ups or annoying adds, and little to no foul language, and referenced quotations. I don't know who added the negative ratings above or why. I suspect they simply differ with me over matters of sex-religion-politics. At any rate if WOT really does want to improve its algorithm for ratings then it ought to investigate who gave me the ratings above and why. There's a prominent atheist site, Debunking Christianity, also a blogspot site, with great ratings. So what is my agnostic site doing rated so slow?

Ed Babinski is a well-read researcher who works as a librarian; it appears to me that the negative ratings are from those who disagree with his viewpoints rather than those who have identified any evidential grounds for rejecting his reliability. Ed is an advocate of science and secular values who often interacts with the deeply religious.