[bondserv]

So says the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in his expert biological opinion. Does he do astrophysics and analytical chemistry too, or does he limit himself to the life sciences?

Most likely he has spoken on the phone with Dr. Meyer. But then again, you are with the Brown Shirts; in one out the other.

"When the Biological Society of Washington issued its embarrassing apology for publishing the paper, the organization pledged that arguments for Intelligent Design 'will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings,' regardless of whether the paper passes peer review."

If you say it about one, the saying applies to them all. HaHaHaHa (-: peer-reviewed :-)

"'My conclusion on this,' McDiarmid said, 'was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part.'"

[general_re]

Most likely he has spoken on the phone with Dr. Meyer.

Oh, really? And what do you based that likelihood on? Tea leaves? Goat entrails?

I don't know any such thing, and neither, I suspect, do you. And even if he has, Meyer himself is not exactly a neutral observer, now is he?

But then again, you are with the Brown Shirts; in one out the other.

When your "argument", such as it is, could have been lifted straight from the Code Pink playbook, you should probably take that as a sign that you're wandering off the reservation. "Brown shirts"? And what does that make you, if not an ideological clone of the left, willing to let bad science in because of how it makes you feel, rather than stand up for some sort of standards of scholarship? Touchy-feely, let's let it in regardless of how bad it is because it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside - please. Spare me.

Brown shirts, feh. Trust me - you don't want to go down that road, friend.