Revisiting Rivista

On Panda's Thumb, John M. Lynch reports
(http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001114.html)

 Today, the DI proudly announced
<http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2627&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News>
that "[f]or the second time in nine months, an article explicitly
applying intelligent design theory to scientific research has been
published in an internationally respected biology journal -- despite
Darwinists' claims that this never happens." This leads one to wonder
about the status of /Rivista/ within the biological community? While it
may be "one of the oldest biological journals in the world" (1919
<http://www.tilgher.it/%28m0h1zb55der2y545b3unsq55%29/index.aspx?lang=eng&tpr=4&act=&lnk=>),
I would argue that it is neither "internationally respected" nor
influential.

Read more over at Stranger Fruit <http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=351>.

Seems that in addition to Wells' paper being mostly unrelated to
Intelligent Design other than an ad hoc argument that a 'design
perspective' was helpful in formulating ideas (scientists have done this
for centuries), Rivista itself seems to be somewhat oversold by the DI
PR department.
Received on Thu Jun 2 22:20:41 2005