Cliff:
>Since publication of Cliff Hamrick's article, Michael Behe has described how
>he submitted a paper, related to ID, to scientific journals and it was
>rejected (see http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=450).
>His conclusion is expressed in relatively mild terms: "The take-home lesson
>I have learned is that, while some science journal editors are individually
>tolerant and will entertain thoughts of publishing challenges to current
>views, when a group (such as the editorial board) gets together, orthodoxy
>prevails." We can be sure that this will be widely used by ID propagandists
>in response to charges that the work of ID proponents has not been published
>in peer-reviewed scientific journals. They will also use it to justify the
>way that they aim their arguments at the public and politicians, bypassing
>the scientific community--another sign of the propagandist nature of their
>campaign. In doing so, they will ignore the possibility that the paper was
>rejected simply because it lacked scientific merit.
Hi Cliff',
I agree. The journal can hardly be accused of intolerance when they promosed
to consider a paper on ID within another 1000 years--if it has merit.
Bertvan
http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=450
Quoted from the above:
If Behe were right in spite of all, it would become apparent in due time
through failures of science. It would be very much out of place to denounce
such failures now, since they have not occurred. Having not yet understood
all of biology is not a failure after just 200 years, given the amount of
understanding already achieved. Let us speak about it again in 1000 years.
Meanwhile, metaphysicians should spare scientists their metaphysics and just
let the scientists do their work--or join them in doing it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 14:20:29 EDT