Which is fine in principle. Readers may recall that the Journal of Theoretical Biology somehow ended up publishing an ID-friendly paper that was probably quite a good paper—and Darwin packs have been nipping at their pants ever since. Unable to call off the pack via a disclaimer, the editors have offered a sort of rebuttal to the paper in the form of a letter contesting it:
The authors, who are all biologists at Georgia Tech, submitted a surprisingly weak response. It doesn’t take issue with the factual claims in the article but rather focuses on attacking the logic behind the design inference:
“What does this paper contribute to our understanding of theoretical biology? The primary claim of Thorvaldsen and Hössjer is that protein complexes, molecular motors, and biological networks are not random. This is true — in a mathematical sense — but is not a new discovery. What they claim to be novel is the conclusion that the existence of these specific systems amongst the space of all possible systems is so rare as to only possibly exist by ‘fine-tuning’ — a proxy for intelligent design. That components of living systems — or systems themselves — are exceedingly rare does not suggest agency or intent.”
Of course it isn’t just “rarity” that implies intelligent design. As we’ve explained many times, unlikelihood alone is not enough to detect design.
Evolution News, “Repentant Biology Journal Offers a Weak Rebuttal to Its Own Pro-ID Fine-Tuning Paper” at Evolution News and Science Today
Good debate could follow. But be realistic. The Darwin mob, an early flowering of Cancel Culture, will not be satisfied with anything less than retraction and the obliteration of the careers of everyone involved. If that is accomplished by scandalously spurious means, all the better for the mob. That increases its sense of power and self-justification.
And by the same reckoning, standing up to the mob and moving on tends to make it slink away. There is, for sure, a dozen easy targets somewhere else.
Saying NO! To them is an act of liberation but few have the foresight.
See also:
Cancel Culture lets an ID-friendly paper slip through the cracks
Journal editors now claim they didn’t “know” that the Thorvaldlen and Hossjer paper was ID-friendly. In Klinghoffer’s telling, maybe the editors thought the paper was okay, maybe even interesting. Then they got mobbed by Darwin thugs and now can’t cringe low enough to atone for their grievous error. Surely there’s a floor down there somewhere…
and
Here’s the Twitter discussion of that ID-friendly paper at the Journal of Theoretical Biology. The Darwinist commenters below the tweet would put one in mind of coyotes except that coyotes must, perforce, have pack standards. They can’t just howl ANYTHING they please… Well, we shall see what happens next.