If there were any entertaining news out there, we’d be writing about it. Instead, we find ourselves stuck with Klinghoffer’s fourth post about the now-retracted paper in PLOS ONE that mentioned “the Creator.” We skipped his third, but for his second, we wrote PLOS Retracts, Discovery Institute Reacts.
Klinghoffer’s latest at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog is PLOS ONE “Creator” Scandal Enters Witch-hunt Territory.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! What a title! Now it’s the scientists who are hunting witches. We speculated before that the Discoveroids are beating this drum because it provides an excuse they can give to their supporters. It “explains” the Discoveroids’ utter failure to achieve any scientific respectability for their “theory” about an unnamed designer — blessed be he!— who does all the things that are traditionally attributed to Yahweh.
Klinghoffer says, with bold font added by us:
The move by major science journal PLOS ONE to pull a peer-reviewed paper over mentions of a “Creator” and “design” looks worse and worse.
To support that bizarre statement, he gives a few quotes from other publications, which we haven’t checked, and then he tells us:
The editor [of the PLOS article], Dr. Han, should be expecting some significant professional retribution right about now. It may or may not be a coincidence that clicking on the People tab at the Han Lab that he directs at Ohio State currently produces an error message — “not found on this server.” Speaking to the Chronicle, a PLOS ONE spokesman declined to comment on whether Han has been pushed aside in his editorial role. But the same source is reported to have told another website, For Better Science, that Han has in fact been “asked to step down.”
Because of our Curmudgeonly benevolence, we’ve been accepting the journal’s explanation that the now-retracted paper never intended to make creationist claims. It only appeared to do so because it was badly translated and poorly edited. Whether or not Dr. Han remains an editor, the rumors about his status are pure delight for Klinghoffer. He declares:
As we enter the familiar witch-hunt territory, I wonder if Darwinists have done damage to their cause, not for the first time.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Disciplining a poorly-performing editor is now the same as witch hunting? Let’s read on:
What are uncommitted bystanders to think when they read about a case like this? And it has indeed been widely covered.
Who is an “uncommitted bystander” in this matter? Someone who can’t figure out what to do about an editor who doesn’t edit well? No, probably not. Klinghoffer is referring to those hapless souls who are undecided about the alleged controversy between evolution and creationism. Assuming they are the ones to whom Klinghoffer refers — will this cause them to embrace creationism? If so, who cares what they think? Klinghoffer continues:
Sure, it feels good to denounce “creationists” but the impression of “message discipline” and doctrine enforcement is undeniable.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, the Darwinists have to be brutal to keep their conspiracy viable. Now, dear reader, pay attention to the way Klinghoffer ends his article. It’s pure gold:
If I were advising evolutionists [hee hee!], I would suggest that they cool it with the censorship and the invective, leave aside scapegoats like Dr. Han, and instead have an honest argument with high-level design advocates. But this they refuse to do.
Yeah, let’s have an “honest” argument with the Discoveroids about whether the human hand was designed — as the retracted article suggested — by “the Creator.” We are always grateful to Klinghoffer for his advice.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.