As I said in Message 51 of the Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" thread, "He is an example of the worst kind of scientist one can imagine, one who just like creationists lets his ideas about the way the world must be govern his acceptance and interpretation of evidence."
So evolutionists have the magical ability to leave their bias, worldviews and preconceptions at the lab door and everyone else does not?
Surely that is not your point?
You've drawn my comment out of context. In the original message in which it appeared, that comment was a reference to Schwartz's research paper on molecular clocks that appeared in an obscure journal not even devoted to that field of research, probably to evade peer review.
Yes, it was an accidental quote-mine. Now I understand.
As a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, Schwartz is probably caught in a publish or perish dilemma. Unable to promote his ideas about human ancestry in mainstream journals, he's seeking out less demanding journals that are willing to consider papers whose quality and rigour isn't up to standards.
I was under the belief that anyone can contribute to mainstream journals as long as they have credentials. Are you saying that in addition to credentials a person must promote the majority view? IDists are criticized for not publishing in these journals but according to your point (if I am understanding it correctly) they are not eligible to be published based on non-mainstream views? If true, why are IDists criticized in this respect in the first place since their views are not eligible for publishing in these publications?
Schwartz is an unlucky victim of genetic analysis. His ideas about the relatedness of orangutans and humans were scholarly, astute and persuasive, but when genetic analysis ruled out the possibility he refused to abandon it. Instead of incorporating the new information into his thinking, he attacked it, and continues to attack it. Since the evidence he's been able to muster for his views is not only inadequate but even misused (see RAZD's comments on his book), he's been marginalized, and he's probably fighting for his professional career at this point. I assume he has tenure and can't be fired, but he's probably getting the worst offices, the worst grad students, the worst class assignments. He's floundering about trying to find some way to regain the prestige he once had in the 1990's.
Are you saying that Schwartz has become a crackpot? Is John Davison a crackpot?
I am through here. I hope you choose to respond.
Ray
™ Version 4.2
