Mr. Silverback: "Only if you also maintain that I've said Rush Limbaugh and Byron York don't ever discuss real, verifiable facts when they write op-eds. "
So, let's see if I understand your analogy here. You are saying that honest science corresponds to what was traditionally supposed to go in the news section of a newspaper (back when "honest reporting" was a serious idea), whereas anti-evolutionism is editorial opinion which belongs on the editorial pages, right?
And just like politics, where all opinions weigh more or less equal, one man one vote, your opinion on evolution should weigh just as strong as anyone else's, and should have just as much right to be published on an editorial page as anyone else -- fair and balanced, "fairness doctrine," etc., right?
In other words, from Mr. Silverback's perspective, a "scientific journal" isn't really "scientific" at all, they're all just opinion journals, where people claiming to be "scientists" publish their personal opinions, and so could be forced by some legal "fairness doctrine" to publish dissenting opinions, which would certainly include anti-evolutionism, right?
So, if I understand you, Mr. Silverback, there really is no such thing as "science," there are only different people's opinions about the nature of things, and your opinions ought to be just as valid as anyone else's, is that about right?
If so, then sorry, but I don't agree. ;-)
No, and sorry, but it's quite odd that you can't figure this out, especially since I said it eplicitly in post 1,747.
What I'm saying is that there is a bias at these publications that would preclude them publishing any paper by an IDer or creationist no matter how solid the data in it was.
BTW, the whole spiel in your post where you basically assumed that disagreeing with you on this issue means I don't even understand the first thing about what science is was a nice touch. Not arrogant at all.