:: If this were a court of law, the judge would not even allow Lenski and his grad student to present their summaries to the jury without first providing the underlying data to the other side. Surely scientific standards have not fallen lower than legal ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::: As I understand it, science is about reproducing results - not trying to get a jury to believe what you say is true. The purpose of a paper is to summarize what you have found, what conclusions that has, what questions remain unanswered and how you got there. This way, someone else can do what you did and see if they get is the same or not. What applies in the legal arena doesn't apply in the scientific one. Science is about reproducing results through the same methodology or criticizing the methodology.
::: With respect to the 14 day time, this is part of a series. One can find Behe commenting on it back in October on a paper published in 2004.[http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNKQ68DYANPYZUT] The reviewers were likely familiar with the project and the papers it has generated and don't need to read the methodology again. There are also issues of when articles can be published (missing a deadline can push it out to the next issue, or the reviewer could be waiting for another article that compliments or contradicts to arrive before publishing that one). Incidently, Behe claims that Lenski's work supports the claims that Behe has made/[http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 15:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
==Note re. article==
As an aside, I' wonder if someone couldn't place some information at the head of the article here? At present, the article simply starts into a "first letter" to "a Prof. Lenski". The article should have a little setup to introduce readers to what on Earth it's all about. There is no reference in the article to the rest of the debate, basically. Just an FYI. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)