nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 54:
Line 54: + + + + + +
Suppression of alternatives to evolution (view source)
Revision as of 08:51, November 15, 2007
, 08:51, November 15, 2007→Peer review: Chemistry in Australia
One columnist wrote:{{QuoteBox|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>Klinghoffer, 2005</ref>}}
One columnist wrote:{{QuoteBox|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>Klinghoffer, 2005</ref>}}
==== ''Chemistry in Australia'' ====
The April 2007 issue of ''Chemistry in Australia'' included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.
The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.<ref>Walker, 2007</ref>
== Bibliography ==
== Bibliography ==