Re: Revisiting Rivista

The paper was also 'published' on ISCID and discussed in depth

http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000521

Pim van Meurs wrote:

> 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 22:23:06 2005