PLOS Retracts, Discovery Institute Advises

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.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “PLOS Retracts, Discovery Institute Advises

  1. If anyone reads posts by Klingie’s Krew, it’s pretty clear they don’t discipline incompetent editors, so why should real journals?

  2. docbill1351

    “High-level design advocates.”

    That would be Dembski! Oh, wait, he’s gone …

  3. Klingie is just jealous because ID papers can’t get published in any journal where retractions might be more notable than the publication.

  4. If a design advocate ever says anything worth having an “argument” over, I’m sure someone in the scientific world would step up to the challenge.

    As it is, they’ll have to live with various bloggers (many of whom are scientists) debunking their books and blog postings on a routine basis – albeit mostly for amusement.

  5. If they want an “honest argument with high-level design advocates”, they could start by allowing comments on their blog.

  6. Eric Lipps

    Sure, it feels good to denounce “creationists” but the impression of “message discipline” and doctrine enforcement is undeniable.

    Yes, it feels good to denounce “creationists”—because “message discipline” and doctrine enforcement are what they’re all about, and never mind facts and evidence as rational people (AKA, in an America run by fundamentalist Bible-bangers, federal prisoners) understand those terms.

  7. Isn’t the inferred claim that “High Level Design Advocates” exist a little pretentious at best? Or is the title intended to infer that their offices are located on the second floor or above? Maybe I should consult with a High Level Psychic or possibly some High Level Homeless for clarity on this?

  8. “Sure, it feels good to denounce “creationists”
    Yes, because we rather not be IDiots. However the good feeling is a bit spoiled by the fact that IDiots and other creationists are sitting ducks – specifically including Klinkleclapper. Take this:

    “But this they refuse to do.”
    Add a comment section to your blog and you’ll see what “Darwinists” refuse and not refuse to do.

  9. Pete Moulton

    Considering that there’s absolutely no evidence that Klinghoffer’s ever even opened a legitimate scientific work, much less read said work with any real understanding, the very idea that he’d be so arrogant as to offer advice to the editors of real journals is utterly risible.

    I’d also like to echo the comments made by AR. and mnbo regarding their worthless blog’s unwillingness to allow comments, but even if they did allow comments what could we expect from them? Ellipses, quote-mining, and ‘creative’ editing all come to mind. They are not honest people.