Changes

→‎Opinions on the Smithsonian Controversy: Rewriting another's contribution (sorry if this is not acceptable).
Line 10: Line 10:  
In a [[Wall Street Journal]] op-ed article, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Discovery Institute Fellows]</ref> portrayed Sternberg as a martyr and victim of discrimination,<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 The Branding of a Heretic] David Klinghoffer. OpinionJournal, January 28.</ref> a tactic used often by intelligent design proponents.<ref>"The "persecuted scientist against the establishment" hoax. Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas."[http://www.jci.org/cgi/reprint/116/5/1134.pdf Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action] Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. (10226K PDF file) </ref>
 
In a [[Wall Street Journal]] op-ed article, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Discovery Institute Fellows]</ref> portrayed Sternberg as a martyr and victim of discrimination,<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 The Branding of a Heretic] David Klinghoffer. OpinionJournal, January 28.</ref> a tactic used often by intelligent design proponents.<ref>"The "persecuted scientist against the establishment" hoax. Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas."[http://www.jci.org/cgi/reprint/116/5/1134.pdf Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action] Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. (10226K PDF file) </ref>
   −
* 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. [http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220]
+
Critics of intelligent design have long argued that it is unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they have retaliated against the managing editor who managed the peer review process on the grounds that intelligent design is "pseudoscience.[http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220]
    
== References ==
 
== References ==
1,410

edits