Glen Davidson
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
|
Not that hypocrisy isn't the rule for ID, but I do think that especially poignant is Dense's whine about bad peer review alongside VJT's and DLH's whine that anyone should apply standards to ID.
Dense:
| Quote | | It’s more a problem of what counts nowadays as peer review. But the good thing is, groups like Retraction Watch are starting to get some sunlight on the problem. |
DLH, in repsonse to the ID-sounding language of the hand article:
| Quote | | How are these actions by evolutionists, Bolton, Nature, and PLOSOne any different from book burning, anti-scientific inquisition, and Lysenkoism? |
Or indeed, how is it different from imposing the standards of Retraction Watch that Dense is praising?
VJT on the same paper:
| Quote | | However, the main issue in this ongoing saga is not whether the authors actually intended to allude to a “Creator,” or but the clear evidence (manifested in readers’ comments) of a bias against publishing ID-friendly views in the mainstream literature." |
Why yes, there does seem to be a bias against publishing stupid evidence-free lies in science journals. How good of VJT to notice.
Stupid unscientific garbage should never be published in journals, and any slip-up calls science as a whole into question. Unless it's their stupid anti-science garbage. Whenever that's kept out it's a matter of censorship.
Glen Davidson
--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
|
