Changes

Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  Now that an intelligent design proponent has published a paper in a peer reviewed journal, Smithsonian scientists have retaliated against the editor who managed the peer review process, on the grounds that ID is "pseudoscience".  David Klinghoffer commented in a Wall Street Journal opinion article:  "Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Klinghoffer 2005]]</ref>

Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  Now that an intelligent design proponent has published a paper in a peer reviewed journal, Smithsonian scientists have retaliated against the editor who managed the peer review process, on the grounds that ID is "pseudoscience".  David Klinghoffer commented in a Wall Street Journal opinion article:  "Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Klinghoffer 2005]]</ref>

== References ==

== References ==