Disproving the Bible

[Jenny A]

The "peer reviewed" journal cited is Bio-complexity.org. It isn't really a peer reviewed journal in the ordinary sense of the word. It's dedicated to a particular point of view: Intelligent Design. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BIO-Complexity Although it claims to be neutral, all of it's editors are pro Intellegent Design. http://www.jackscanlan.com/2010/12/bio-c...t-complex/
And it's had trouble getting enough articles to stay afloat. Consequently, it's had to frequently publish articles by it's own board of editors. The journal itself does not list the editors credentials--always a bad sign.

If there were a controversy, you'd think there would be scientists flocking to publish there. You'd also think that finding a editorial board with credentials to be proud of would be easy too.

So, the technical information in the article must be incorrect because of the beliefs of those that wrote it? Should we toss out all of Newton's contributions to science...he believed in God?

You did not comment on the contents.

Nope, I said it wasn't peer reviewed because the journal it was published in isn't peer reviewed in the scientific sense. Peer reviewed articles get looked at by other real scientists. This one won't.

And Newton did not cite god as the reason for his principles. Intellegent Design presupposes a designing god. There are many many Christian scientists who believe in evolution and work in the field. The don't find the need to cite magic/god.