To: metacognative
Wow. I can't believe a scientific community would actually pledge not to ever run an article about something again, and it is disturbing.
That is the very opposite of how a scientist would behave.
THE OPPOSITE.
I don't care if you don't like ID, if the article passes peer review, it should be run. The fact that this journal wants to go beyond that and simply say they will never present anything criticizing any aspect of evolution, no matter how scientific, is shocking.
276 posted on
01/29/2005 12:42:01 PM PST by
rwfromkansas
("War is an ugly thing, but...the decayed feeling...which thinks nothing worth war, is worse." -Mill)
To: rwfromkansas
I can't believe a scientific community would actually pledge not to ever run an article about something again, and it is disturbing. Yeah, I'm not real wild about that either. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to exclude this article - and probably the ones that follow - without making that kind of broad prejudgement.
285 posted on
01/29/2005 12:52:22 PM PST by
general_re
(How come so many of the VKs have been here six months or less?)
To: rwfromkansas
The fact that this journal wants to go beyond that and simply say they will never present anything criticizing any aspect of evolution, no matter how scientific, is shocking. I word-searched "never" but didn't see your reference.
293 posted on
01/29/2005 12:58:11 PM PST by
WildTurkey
(When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson