Darwinian fundamentalists threaten boycott of science journal for paper mentioning “Creator”

The Church of Naturalism
The Church of Naturalism says turn or burn, heretic!

So, there was a peer-reviewed paper that appeared in the PLOS peer-reviewed journal that made reference to a Creator in the abstract. The scientific work of the paper had no problems.

I saved a copy of the post and the comments. Let’s look at some of the comments.

Comments by editors of the journal

Michael Sears:

The article should be retracted and the handling editor should be dismissed. As an Editor for this journal, I am appalled.

Ricard Sol:

I think that pretending to defend a creationist argument (non-science) in a science journal raises serious doubts about the whole enterprise. The paper should be retracted. As a PLOS ONE editor I believe accepting this situation would seriously damage our credibility.

Dante Chialvo:

[…]I am ashamed that the journal staff, the editor responsable for the paper, the reviewers, all ignored this more than obvious red flag resulting on a creationist argument embedded on a scientific paper. I will consider resigning unless exemplary actions are taken by Plos.

Angel Sánchez:

As I have said in a separate post, I will resign as an editor of PLOS ONE if this paper is not retracted immediately. PLOS ONE is a scientific journal and I don’t want to have anything to do, not even my name related to a journal tha publishes about superstition and supernatural entities. I will stop editing and I will stop submitting, and I’ll recommend everybody never to submit again to PLOS ONE. I hope we don’t have to go there.

So, you can see that science – as the naturalists conduct it – is not really the search for truth, no holds barred. It’s the attempt to explain nature without reference to a Creator and Designer. Whatever the experiments show must conform to a philosophical assumption (a religion), called naturalism. And the religion of naturalism determines what can and cannot be accepted as science. You can see the same principle at work in the denial of the Big Bang cosmology despite evidence such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, the light element abundances, and the redshifting of light from distant galaxies. Science has shown we live in a created universe that began about 13.7 billion years ago, but here we have atheists in denial of science sitting in positions of power deriding the Creator who has been revealed by experimental science. That’s the power of the naturalistic dogma. And it turns out that the most powerful argument for Darwinian evolution is this: “believe it, or I’ll have you fired, and ruin your career”. This is how Darwinism propagates from old to young – through coercion, and not through real science.

Other comments

Zach Throckmorton:

As others have noted, utilization of an intelligent design creationism framework for explaining human anatomy is not acceptable for a scientific journal.

Jorge Soberon:

I find the use of religious language in a scietific paper totally unacceptable. I will be watching this paper closely, and distributing it to colleagues. If PLOS ONE does not do something about it, like asking the authors to retratct the paper, or at the very least publishing an explanation, I will stop reviewing papers for PLOS ONE. I do hope the editors of PLOS ONE realize what a huge mistake was to accept publication of a paper with this wording. It says a lot about the care with which a paper is edited.

Adam Hartstone-Rose:

This article proves that there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the journal. If the paper isn’t retracted, my students, collaborators and I will have no choice but to refrain from submitting to this once respectable journal. I’m embarrassed for you and embarrassed that some of my proudest papers are in your journal.

[…]This requires a ballistic reaction, not a considered “looking into” the problem!

Enrico Petretto:

This is outrageous. If PLOS ONE does not do something about it, i.e., ask the authors to retract the paper, and in any case, if the paper isn’t retracted, my students, collaborators and I will have no choice but to refrain from considering (i..e, reading, reviewing and citing) papers published in PLOS ONE.

Luigi Maiorano:

Quote totally!! outrageous is the minimum! I published 3 of my papers in PlosOne, but I will never do it again. I’m actually telling all my students and colleagues to boycott the journal and never consider it again!

Jean-Michel Heraud:

I have no knowledge to judge this article…

[…]I would recommend to the editor of the journal to exclude definitely the two reviewers that have accepted this manuscript.

Oliver Rauhut:

As noted by many comments below, this is not a matter of inappropriate wording! This rather seems to be a (successfull) attempt to place an intelligent design argument in a (so far) respected scientific journal. Thus, the only solution is the immediate retraction of this paper! Unless this step has been done, my workgroup and me will refrain from publishing further papers in PLoS!

Harry Noyes:

Changing Creator to Nature will not solve the problem since it still implies a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. That is there is no design process, no outcome is foreseen. Anything that works better tends to have a selective advantage but that is not a product of design it is a product of selection working on random events. The paper clearly needs a substantive rewrite quite apart from the concerns raised about the significance of the results raised by other comments.

Carl Schmidt:

A more important issue is the review process that allowed such nonsense as “Creator” to appear in a journal purportedly devoted to science.

The article has now been retracted.

Evolution News comments:

This would seem to bear out a remark by Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen, recounted in Darwin’s Doubt, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

So what’s really behind all this fascism?

Consider this quote from famous population geneticist (and Darwinian fundamentalist) Richard Lewontin. And note that he equates science with his chosen religion of naturalism, he doesn’t accept science in the traditional sense of the word, where there is no metaphysical baggage.

He says:

Our willingness to accept scientific [i.e. – naturalistic] claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science [i.e. – naturalism] and the supernatural. We take the side of science [i.e. – naturalism] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific [i.e. – naturalistic] community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science [i.e. – naturalism] somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

“Billions and Billions of Demons” by Richard Lewtontin. (Link)

“A priori” means before seeing the facts, before seeing the evidence.

And what is behind the choice of naturalism as the preferred religion? Consider this quote from atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

He says this:

“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)

The days of Isaac Newton are long gone, and another Newton will not emerge while the Naturalistic Church is in power. And it’s a taxpayer-funded church, too. Think about that next time you vote for bigger or smaller government.

Positive arguments for theism

13 thoughts on “Darwinian fundamentalists threaten boycott of science journal for paper mentioning “Creator””

  1. “If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
    —Viktor E. Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul

    More anti-theist shutupery… And genetic fallacy.


  2. And they pulled the study? Wow! I am starting to believe that science is only one way of knowing (epistemological concept/theory?). These journal editors (and probably many scientists, atheists, Christians, etc.) are probably unaware of meta-epistemology (‘an explicit reflection on and evaluation of alternative theories of knowledge’ or different ways of knowing, per se). Certain meta-epistemological theories are ‘more friendly to the idea that religious belief might be perfectly rational.’

    See: The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology by Flint & Rea, 2009 ed.,


  3. Atheists are non-statistically-significantly diverse hunks of biological matter by their own reckoning and therefore their thoughts and opinions are of no consequence except to each other. All they have is sort of a collective consciousness, which they don’t even believe in, and so they have nothing.


  4. All of the howling, screeching, shrieking and screaming by the abovementioned editors (bordering on hysteria) is over the inclusion of the word “Creator” in a scientific article. There’s only one problem with their position:

    Evolution cannot explain (and therefore cannot disprove) creation.

    Therefore it cannot disprove the existence (or not) of a Creator.

    If you want to say that IMPLYING a Creator in a scientific paper is inappropriate (because we are dealing with natural causes only; this is a metaphysical question with religious implications, etc. etc.), well, OK, that’s a debatable point.

    But no one can RULE OUT a Creator based on science alone.


    Because science deals with the natural world ONLY, and cannot speak to the existence (or not) of the supernatural.

    It would be like Hamlet saying there’s no scientific evidence for Shakespeare.


  5. Makes perfect sense.

    How can you claim that no respectable scientific journal would publish such an idea, if you can’t ensure that any journal that does is stripped of respectability?

    Same idea as being able to claim that there is no evidence for something requiring being able to make the final determination on what is allowed to be considered evidence.


  6. “Science has shown we live in a created universe that began about 13.7 billion years ago, but here we have atheists in denial of science sitting in positions of power deriding the Creator who has been revealed by experimental science.”

    It has?! Can you please cite the peer-reviewed paper where this “Creator” has been revealed by experimental science, thanks.


      1. Both of your posts above fail to cite the peer-reviewed paper where this “Creator” has been revealed by experimental science.

        What journal was it published in, and when. Thanks in advance.


        1. These are some of the top discoveries in the field of cosmology, which is what the posts I linked you to before said. Only a complete moron who knew nothing about cosmology would ask for “peer-reviewed papers” of discoveries of this significance. The CMBR discovery won a Nobel prize, for example. It’s a confession of ignorance that you ask to know what anyone who studies the field already knows.

          Penzias, A.A.; R. W. Wilson (July 1965). “A Measurement Of Excess Antenna Temperature At 4080 Mc/s”. Astrophysical Journal Letters 142: 419–421. Bibcode:1965ApJ…142..419P. doi:10.1086/148307.

          Alpher, R. A.; Bethe, H.; Gamow, G. (1 April 1948). “The Origin of Chemical Elements”. Physical Review 73 (7): 803–804.

          It’s like asking for peer-reviewed evidence for plate tectonics or continental drift.


      1. Hi, I only read peer-reviewed papers when discussing science online as it makes it easier to read, analyse, search and follow-up on references. Can you recommend one that helps make your point? Thanks.


        1. Jack,

          Although I will not call you a ‘moron’, I do believe that you are not being very sincere in your request. As you know (or should know), most peer-reviewed papers and/or journals require you to purchase the journal or document (unless you are an employee of an think tank, college or university, paying an annual fee for databases like Ovid, or a college student). A quicker way is to look at a link or video, and then, do your own homework (As my mom use to say: ‘You shouldn’t expect anyone to do your homework for you!?’).

          If you watch the video (or make Dr. Schroeder a happy man by purchasing his book ‘The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom’ 2009 ed.,), then you will notice that Dr. Schroeder provides names for you to research, and see their (the names of the individuals who made the scientific discovery) findings.

          For a preview of Dr. Schroeder’s book (Amazon will let you read portions of the book), please feel free to review this link:


          In the video, Dr. Schroeder also mentions the scientific, peer-reviewed journal(s) for their (names that he mentions) scientific discoveries.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s