Yesterday we wrote Peer-Review Ruckus Thrills Discovery Institute. As we noted, the journal PLOS ONE has retracted the clumsily translated and shoddily edited paper that mentioned “the Creator.” Presumably, the retraction occurred not long after the Discoveroids posted.
Since then, the Discoveroids have posted twice about the incident — both times by David Klinghoffer, their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. First, Klinghoffer wrote Censorship in Real Time — PLOS ONE Retracts “Proper Design by the Creator” Paper. He says, with bold font added by us:
That was fast. The sound of one hand clapping? Now, it’s no hands. Besieged by a furious mob of censors, the editors at the peer-reviewed journal PLOS ONE have retracted a paper on the “architecture” of the human hand that repeatedly invoked notions of “design” and a “Creator.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The peer-review process, albeit belated, is referred to as censorship. Then he again reminds us of the Discoveroids’ crafty cleansing of their version of creationism, desperately hoping to disguise it as science, because old-fashioned biblical creationism is certain to lose in court:
I must note here that the theory intelligent design does not infer a “Creator,” a religious idea that goes beyond what the scientific evidence says. ID infers a source of intelligence, and leaves it to others to argue about the identity of the source.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Let’s read on:
That aside, this should be an eye-opener. True, the language about a “Creator” was not what you expect in a scientific paper. It’s not justified by the science. An unadorned inference to design is a different matter. But that’s moot now.
What about this imbroglio does Klinghoffer regard as “an eye-opener”? He continues:
You can see, far from the first time in our coverage of matters relating to academic freedom, how the mechanism of intimidation works. … In this case, an editor’s naivety has become an occasion for admonishing others not even to consider researching their own heretical ideas. In an oppressive atmosphere where doubters are shamed and punished, honest investigation hardly stands a chance. The censors want an echo chamber, and that’s what they’ve created.
Note the Discoveroid Newspeak: Keeping nonsensical conclusions out of science papers is the “mechanism of intimidation,” which is an abuse of “academic freedom.” It’s done in an “oppressive atmosphere” where “honest investigation” (i.e., creationist propagandizing) is regarded as “heretical.” He concludes by saying:
There are “closeted” design thinkers scattered around the academic science world — indeed, we know many of them, while you can be sure a great many more are out there too, unknown except to themselves. Whatever the merits of this paper, the episode was another warning to them.
What is the purpose of such a bizarre post? Who will find it to be a satisfying explanation of events? Your Curmudgeon’s opinion is that such things are written to convince the Discoveroids’ generous patrons to keep the money flowing, because theirs will be a long struggle, against an exceedingly evil and determined conspiracy, which explains why their “theory” isn’t making any progress in the world of science.
After that, Klinghoffer posted yet again about the subject: Racism? Here’s an Interesting Take on the PLOS ONE Censorship Story. He says, with our bold font:
The authors and editor of the now retracted PLOS ONE paper, making reference to “design” and a “Creator” in analyzing the human hand, are Chinese. One author appealed for mercy, citing problems with the translation of their work into English. In Chinese, he explained, they attributed the architecture of the hand to “Nature,” not God. Nevertheless, rather than simply amend the article, the peer-reviewed journal bowed to a lynch mob of censors and pulled it altogether.
Yeah, a “lynch mob.” He quotes some blogger at great length, who says that retracting the paper is racism. After giving us that gigantic quote, which we’ll skip, Klinghoffer righteously declares:
I’m not endorsing this theory. Calling people “racist” is also serious business.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! But saying that it’s censorship by a lynch mob is okay. Hey –if referring to the retraction as “racism” is going too far, then why did Klinghoffer even mention it? He explains:
But certainly some form of bigotry played a role in the retraction. Mere mistranslation or an editor’s goof that did not seem to favor a religious interpretation would obviously not have occasioned the riot this did. Since the journal is online, it could easily have been fixed, with an editor’s note added indicating as much, not retracted.
Yes, bigotry must have played a role. Sure, it makes sense. After all, it was done by — gasp! — Darwinists.
Can the Discoveroids get any more mileage out of this incident? We’re bored already, so they’d better be very entertaining if we’re going to return to it again.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.