Posted: Oct 29, 2017 12:43 am
Cito di Pense wrote:
So, what are your criteria for accepting or rejecting 'work'? My guess is that you think that if it looks to you like a lot of work, it was a lot of work. Fingerpainting on the walls with your own shit looks like a lot of work, too, if you spend enough time at it.
There was nothing unscientific in the paper. The referees saw nothing wrong with the inclusion of a "Creator" (which could have just meant "Nature"). Another one was pulled from a proteomics journal because it concluded that the phenomenon observed had to have been generated by a "mighty creator": http://blogs.nature.com/news/2008/02/pe ... tor_a.html
Valuable insight and knowledge may have been lost with this relentless persecution of creationist scientists.