Posted: Oct 30, 2017 5:19 pm
Shrunk wrote:DavidMcC wrote:That was my point: maybe they aren't, and they are slipping in a bit of creationism in by stealth.
Yeah, I misspoke in my post. I should have written "Even if they aren't atheists, that does not mean they are creationists."
But, sure, it's also possible that they are creationists. Which would kind of put the kibosh on your other conspiracy theory that PLOS ONE just cooked this all up to boost readership. And then there's also the option of taking the authors at their word when they say they did not realize the full implications of that term in the English language and in a society where creationism has some political influence. Parsimony inclines me to the latter explanation. But who knows for sure?
Please stop trying to label me as a "conspiracy theorist". Also, your implication that PLOS ONE cannot possibly be acting to boost its readership with sensationalist articles of the kind that New Scientist is notorious for does not become you. It's so poor as to be almost like a wind-up.