On 10/5/2020 1:18 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
If this article were in an "Intelligent Design" blog or journal, then
this wouldn't be significant.
But this is in a "secular scientific" journal. So I am curious about
the backlash.
e.g.
"Dembski, Axe, and Behe come up, and the paper includes essentially a
review of just about all ID arguments we’ve heard. This is a secular
journal, but does make me wonder about who the editor was and who
reviewed it. It is hard to imagine this paper surviving an unbiased
review."
Now there's this:
*Editor’s Disclaimer*
*The Journal of Theoretical Biology and its co-Chief Editors do not
endorse in any way the ideology of nor reasoning behind the concept of
intelligent design. Since the publication of the paper it has now
become evident that the authors are connected to a creationist group
(although their addresses are given on the paper as departments in
bona fide universities). We were unaware of this fact while the paper
was being reviewed. Moreover, the keywords “intelligent design” were
added by the authors after the review process during the proofing
stage and we were unaware of this action by the authors. We have
removed these from the online version of this paper. We believe that
intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal
of Theoretical Biology.*
That sounds better, I guess.
It sounds worse to me. It sounds like "Let's keep the real message and
intent of the paper covered up." I don't think the Editor's disclaimer
will show up when someone references the paper in the future.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/679eacdc-fe91-cb3d-5ab8-dd3d09a9407c%40verizon.net.
