(July 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm)SteveII Wrote:(July 21, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Jenny A Wrote: 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.
Firstly Newton lived in a time where not believing was not advisable. Secondly, you're committing an appeal to authority fallacy...
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you