Re: More fusillades in the ID wars

> .............................
> One thing I haven't seen comment on is whether the article did indeed have
> "something interesting in it." My impression on looking it over when the
> "scandal" 1st broke was that it was a repeat of standard ID arguments
> which had been presented in other venues.
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>

ID arguments that it seems likely that few of the readers of that journal
have read before.

It was a review article not a research paper. Its topic addressed a problem
for evolutionary biology. I have no expertise in whether or not the topic
underdiscussion was comprehensive or not, that is what the reviewers are
for. The conclusion in a review article should be understood as being what
it is, the opinion of the author..

I have not seen much discussion about the comprehensivenss of the review
portion of the article.. Is this part of the article not rigourous enough
scientifically?

Frankly, I was disappointed in the article. I was hoping it would propose a
scientific test of design. It just seems to say, neo-Darwinism alone cant
explain the Cambrian explosion, and then he concludes that it must be
designed. But, this is the author's opinion. It should be understood as
that, and not a reflection of the Journal, its editors, or the institution.

The ire isnt about the scientific part of the article, it is about the
conclusion. And the response has been so severe, and hateful it seems, that
to me this indicates a bias against any conclusion not consistent with a
materialistic worldview.
Received on Tue Feb 1 20:26:57 2005