Washington Post reports witchhunt by evolutionists.

He subverted peer-review and stacked the deck to fraudulently insert a paper into a journal. How is that a fair hearing? ID has had it's fair hearing, and it's been found to be worthless. What do we need more hearings for?Isn't the fact that ID's defenders have to resort to this sort of chicanery and subterfuge evidence that the whole endeavor is basically worthless?

The Washington Post? They're part of the "right-wing conspiracy", yes. Naturally they're sticking up for a right-wing position. Same for the US Office of Special Counsel. I mean, at least three top government officials - Bush, Frist, Santorum - have come out in favor of ID. The objectivity of a federal body, any federal body, in regards to this question must be examined. A function where they were going to disavow the article he published.You neglected to mention that little detail.You never answered my question, RM. If ID has such merit, why do it's proponents, like you, have to advance their goals through half-truths, dishonesty, and flim-flam?

The Post is conservative, not liberal. I think you're thinking of the New York Times.

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Just because the Post is mainstream doesn't make it liberal. The Post's editorial stance is largely very conservative.I'm pretty sure that you're thinking of the New York Times, well-renown as the arch-liberal newspaper.(Crash looks some stuff up)Oh, wait, no, it's me. I was thinking of the Washington Times as the conservative paper. While the Post isn't as liberal as other newspapers, and of course claims political neutrality, it's isn't accurate for me to have described it as conservative. I apologize.

Well, no, he doesn't. If he picked his reviewers then it wasn't properly peer-reviewed, by definition.

Can you substantiate that hand-picking the review jury is this journal's standard practice?