zoziw said:
"I do believe in faeries, I do, I do!"
The reason I posted this was because your friend Steve published
this article which raised the ire of
these people, which in turn provoked a response from the
person who handled the review and editing process.
I got to say something about what Steve says in his article:
Steve Meyer said:
The Cambrian explosion refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1
Note the age of Bowring's quotation. That is WAY outdated. In the late 1990s, the earliest fossils of several phyla were found in the Precambrian. For Steve not to use a more recent source is abysmal in my book. Most scientific articles don't reference articles much older than 5 years unless they are really earth shaking articles or mathematical proofs.
All of this raises the question of whether lobby groups are applying pressure on those publishing peer reviewed journals to make sure they don't publish anything these groups might be lobbying against.
I have no doubt that there are lobbying groups against the publication of such things. But then, have you ever tried to get a critique of a young-earth creationist article published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly? I have, and I was rejected specifically because it wasn't a young-earth criticism. Given that I had published over 20 items in that journal it would be weak to say my writing style did it (they actually did tell me it was because of the views expressed).
My point with this is that this kind of thing goes on all the time and not with just this kind of paper. When Gordon Simons and I tried to publish some biostatistical observatoins on DNA, we ran into a lot of trouble getting the article published. The statisticians loved our paper, the biologists didn't believe it. It took a year of hard work and a couple of different journals to get it published. We finally got it published in Journal of Theoretical Biology. Christians should realize that no one guarantees you a right of publication in a journal. And if you advocate controversial ideas, it will be even harder. We should quit trying to act like the world should be 'fair' whatever that is (I suspect it is often defined as that which is advantageous to us).
If that does occur, and this would seem to be evidence that to some extent it does, then we need to be aware that there may be valid scientific studies which support alternate origins theories outside of evolution which are not published for political reasons.
I got layed off from a really well paying job for being a YEC. My performance reviews had been nothing but top notch. But then I know a few evolutionists who have been discriminated against (and laid off) because they had a YEC boss. All of this is evidence that none of us are perfect and that no side has moral superiority when it comes to behavior.
I've never been an advocate of either YEC or ID, prefering to leave the question of origins to the experts. However, as someone who does rely on information from such experts, the above is troubling.
Relax. The important thing is not where the idea is published, but that the idea gets out to the market place of ideas. THere is no doubt that the views Meyer and the ID crowd are espousing are making them millions in royalties. You don't have to feel sorry for them.
But then I always think of the Christian publishers when people complain about bias in publishing. Christian publishers would not publish my books because I didn't fit into their mold. I went to 30 different Christian publishers and was rejected by one and all. Anyone who has read my books will agree that they are quite well documented. But because they weren't YEC, places like Baker Books rejected it.
Here is a letter I wrote on my publishing experience to a friend. This was written back in 1996 when NO ONE would publish ANYTHING by me, not even articles for journals. I worked hard and finally got PSCF to take a few items of mine. Note the first rejection below the editor wanted to buy copies for himself and friends.
***
It was weird. As a YEC, I published 27 items in the CRSQ, Int. Conf. on
Creationism, ghost wrote the evolution section for Josh McDowells Reasons
book. I am not a novice at getting things published. But since I have
changed, I can't get anyone to even publish an article where I advocate my
views. When I was searching for a publisher, I got this comment,
"Though I don't agree with all of your conclusions, I think you have done a
good job. You have a number of unique or unusual proposals that would be
helpful for people to consider who are trying to think through the origins
questions. I am especially glad that you are trying to treat both science
and Scripture with integrity. I don't know how many copies of the book you
have had printed so far, but I would like to keep this one if possible (let
me know what it costs) and to get a second for one of my colleagues.
"I am afraid you are going to have trouble getting a publisher. Most
of the conservative Christian houses have young-earth creationists looking
over their shoulder and are reluctant to publish anything that would get them
into trouble with that group. (Both Hugh Ross and I have faced this problem)
In general, your liberal religious publishers would only sneer at taking the
Bible seriously regarding early earth's history. "
...
"I'm afraid that we at [deleted by GRM} cannot publish your book. Our guys
are old-earth creationists, not theistic evolutionists, and we take enough
heat for our own position without attracting additional flack for publishing
a book we don't even agree with."
It was the nicest rejection I ever got.
Another publisher called me, encouraged me, (he talked to me for over 45
minutes) but said he didn't think they could publish it either. However, he
has since bought 7 books. One for himself and 6 to give away. If the book
is bad, as one might surmize from the more than 30 rejections, why would the guy do this?
One editor hand wrote a note on his rejection "Excellent presentation." and
wrote in the body "Do keep knocking on the doors". His assistent had wanted to read it before he returned it but the editor didn't let him.
[name deleted by glenn]'s editor hand wrote on his form rejection letter, "We
appreciate your material but do not have a place for a book on this subject
in our present plan. Sorry." Publishers generally don't write hand notes on
rejections.
I have also tried to publish shorter articles in various Christian journals
advocating my views. Every single one has rejected me. I just thank God I
live in the age of Internet because that is the only venue open to me.
***
An addition to that story today(Dec 2004)
And that IS why I spend all the time on the internet that I do. Christian publishers are as bigoted as any others. One publisher, several years later
bought my book and told me that he would publish it if I did some re-writing. I rewrote it and I will gladly acknowledge that the re-write was for the better. But the pressure on the guy not to publish me was awful and he backed out after I had done the work, so I am back to the internet as a means of getting my views out.
In conclusion, I am probably not the person you should have whinged to about bias in publications.
