Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

2018 Creationist paper: Retraction notice isn’t enough for Jerry Coyne


Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne sounded the alarm late last year about a creationist paper (in truth, rather poorly written) published by Springer:

…two days ago I checked the website, and found that the paper was still there, with the only indication that it was retracted being a note (“RETRACTED ARTICLE”) on the BROWSER TAB of the paper, as well as on the downloadable pdf of the paper. I saw no indication on the paper’s site itself that it had been retracted, and it still appeared on the Springer Page… 

I guess I can take some satisfaction that the paper has been “retracted”, but really, in what way has it been “retracted”? It’s still there, freely available on the paper’s website and even in the journal’s table of contents (where, I note, it is labeled as “retracted”. Jerry Coyne, “Springer “apparently” retracts a creationist paper, but it’s still on the website” at Why Evolution Is True

True. Jerry supplies screenshots. Here’s one showing that the paper was in fact retracted. See upper left:

If you download the paper, you will see RETRACTED shadow-printed diagonally on each page.

From Springer’s perspective, of course, their approach is best. Anyone can see what the paper says and that it was retracted. They are free to draw the conclusions they wish.

Making the paper disappear, to please people like Jerry, would be far less transparent.

Hmmm. To please Jerry, maybe the author will have to disappear too. 😉

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Update: Springer defends publication of creationist paper to Jerry Coyne He got a reply within 24 hours, one which he considers “lame and evasive.”


A Springer journal has published a creationist paper. And Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution Is True, is, needless to say, upset.


Update 2: Springer Has Forwarded Jerry Coyne’s Concern Re Creationist Paper

PJ, the article shows what would happen were a rabbit fossil to appear in Cambrian deposits. Oh, somehow things got reworked and that's why it is out of the expected place.The belt of protective auxiliary hypotheses will shield the core commitments of the research programme until heavy enough plunging fire breaks through and triggers catastrophic blow up as happened at Jutland. KF kairosfocus
I wasn't sure where best to stick this, so decided on this newish post. Could this be the Rabbit 'Mammoth' in the Cambrian 'Jurassic '? https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/woolly-mammoth-tooth-from-40000-years-ago-found-in-rock-where-it-shouldnt-be/ar-BBUknlP?ocid=spartandhp PeterJ

Leave a Reply