Ah, more Denyse O'Leary-flavoured dumbassitude ... I was wondering where she'd gone lately. And now, to work:
- When Rick Sternberg published a peer-reviewed paper in his Smithsonian journal that suggested support for intelligent design, a concerted effort was made to ruin his career. he was told not to come to the press conference disavowing the article because, he told Michael Powell of the Washington Post, "they could notguarantee me that they could keep order" among the distinguished Darwinist scientists (September 2005).
Take it away, PZ:
"By claiming that ID isn't science since it's not published peer-reviewed literature…and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals." He's whining about the atrocious Stephen Meyer paper that was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, slipped in with sloppy peer review under the negligent eye of Richard Sternberg.
I've read the Meyer paper. It was terrible: poor scholarship, flagrant handwaving, a lot of empty noise. Doesn't it say something that the only way it could get published was in a relatively obscure journal with a baraminologist as acting editor, and that it was later repudiated by more responsible officers of the journal? Science has standards. Rise to them or forget about being accepted.
Stop by again next week when Denyse writes something retarded and we make fun of it. As usual.
BONUS TRACK: Amusingly, we have this comment from back in 2004:
I wouldn't say it backfired. ID folks can now truthfully say their ideas were published in a peer-reviewed "Evolutionist" journal. Most people who hear them make this claim (especially the politicians) won't bother to actually find the article and read the repudiation.
And, sure enough, here's Denyse in 2008:
When Rick Sternberg published a peer-reviewed paper in his Smithsonian journal that suggested support for intelligent design, ...
Stupidity is so depressingly predictable, isn't it?