> And there's no reason why the author of a review article should not point out what appear to be shortcomings of the science as currently practiced, and even give his views of possible solutions to cited problems. <
However, this needs to be done accurately. The Meyers article cited assorted papers that claimed to have found some exception to evolutionary expectations. Such papers are not hard to find, because almost all papers claim to have something new and different. However, he dismissed the claims within those papers to provide alternative evolutionary explanations. It's the old trick of exaggerating the significance of anything that sounds like it fits your view while rejecting the very same sources where they disagree.
> What chance does anyone, anywhere now have of publishing an article about design, even if it is scientfically accurate and rigorous?<
The poor record on scientific accuracy and rigor for articles about design does make it harder for any legitimate articles on the subject to get published.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Received on Tue Feb 8 16:13:07 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 08 2005 - 16:13:09 EST