Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 10:
Line 10: − − This proves that scientists always make mistakes, making all of their work suspect.
Reverted edits by FestinaLente (Talk); changed back to last version by Conservative
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 ==