[js1138]

The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

LOL. So a paper reviewed by three unnamed experts, plus an editor with an acknowledged creationist bias agreed to publish a paper whose arguments and conclusions they disagreed with.

Several this about this stand out. It is always possible to write an article in which the arguments and conclusions are sound. Why would experts not continue the editing process until they agreed with the arguments?

Second, if the experts disagreed with the arguments and conclusions, why didn't they say so at the time of publication? Why not append a disclaimer indicating the article was published solely for encouraging debate?

I have to conclude that Sternberg got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and had to backpeddle.

I will expect you, in future posts referring to the Meyer article, to mention the fact that the people who accepted the article for publication disagreed with it.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I didn't think it was so much the unsoundness of the arguments as the lack of them. A string of statements doesn't necessarily rise to the level of an argument. (Nor does a poodle of sofas make a sentence.)

Introducing new terms to explain previously undefined terms is usually correctable by editing. In this paper, it seem to be a major compositional device though.