> They claim that they "will not," but the reality is that
> they "can not" scientifically rebut the paper.
No, it's "will not", because it should never have been published there in the first place. Publishing it was analagous to publishing a paper on "UFOs and Alien Influences on the Construction of the Pyramids" in Biblical Archaeology Review.
Steyn's paper was worked over in a number of places, as was the previous paper from which he cribbed most of the material. For a pretty thorough critique of why, in addition to being inappropriate in the Society's journal, it was not terribly good science, read on:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html
> Steyn's
Should be Meyer's.
Incorrect. The paper was successfully peer-reviewed. Your argument is that it shouldn't have been published *after* a successful peer review.
In effect, what you are doing is attempting to rebut a peer-reviewed paper without sending your rebuttal through the peer-review process.
...And the reason that you are attempting to avoid peer review yourself is as I stated above, that you can not find scientific flaws with the paper itself.
How can people "read on" if censors such as yourself are preventing competing peer-reviewed documents from being published?!
...and why, if the paper in question not such "good science," is a peer-reviewed rebuttal paper unavailable? It should have been easy (if your side was "right"). It wasn't.
You've got to jump through hoops, kid. You've got to **pretend** that the peer-review process failed, that the editorial review failed, and that it would be somehow inappropriate to even **discuss** the paper in question (in order to explain why no peer-reviewed rebuttal is on file).
Face it, your side has lost the entire Evolutionary argument, and you are reduced to using your positions of power to stifle publication and scientific debate.
You've become censors. You've become dogmatic. You've become unscientific. You've even resorted to becoming oppressive.