I responded to that paper six years ago, soon after it came out, at Uncommon Descent:
What I didn’t do then at the blog is to say that I had submitted my response as a letter to the Editor of Microbe, which he turned down. My correspondence with him is below. …
Same thing has happened at Science to Steve Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt, on the Cambrian explosion:
Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin’s Doubt in the same publication. Without explantion, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest.
Charles Marshall’s review of Darwin’s Doubt (“When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship,” Science, September 20) inadvertently demonstrates the severity of the central problem addressed in the book — i.e., the origin of morphological novelty in the Cambrian period. More.
It’s getting so that, in order to make anything like a fair-minded assessment of Darwinism or neo-Darwinism or whatever the latest term they are using to short circuit discussion of the gap between theory and evidence, you will have to read blogs, not journals.
It’s not that they don’t understand. They can’t afford to. Think for yourself.