quote:Originally posted by gene90: Considering the anonymity of peer review, how would the scientific community even find a way to distinguish a Creationist for discrimination?
I am not sure how this happens but this it does and in my case if I have not been discriminated for communicating with Creationists then the science is even in more trouble than the "rosy-cozy-cornered" market even 'believes.' I had with my first used of e-mail tried to communicate with John Grehan, a New Zealand panbiogeographer relocated to Penn State and his first transmittal was postive but as I began to get in writing my position on "spatial evolution" utlizing the panbiogeography that started as an independent study at Cornell under Amy McCune he has broken off contact with me and is currently invovled on web site TAXACOM in a discussion of censorship, his while he has selected to ignore and return unopened a package of my work I sent.
Earlier on Taxacom he made frequent references to "US" creationist discourse so I did not expect for bias that he lost connection with me but he carries on without any acknowledgement that my ideas had any effect or should have on professional biogeographers. He may in fact feel that he learned nothing from me but that certianly does not justify his breaking off the panbiog abbreviation I communicated with him for there are in his words only a minority that may be using this method to "beat the horse" as his critics comment on the subject.
This difference obviously is without anonymous peer review but there is contribution of creationism to the changes that occur as evolution thinking overreaches its actual biological locus and in my case this coming in the new electronic publishing domain while copyright and peer-review or as one biodiversity informaticist calls it, "Accreditation: The process of assigning trust levels to validators" has not been worked into the form submission protocol adequately. Hope that helps.