Attacking books vs. seizing manuscripts
I rarely respond to comments, but this one, in response to the post on the seized manuscript for Design of Life may be worth making an exception for.
The group preventing open discussion of a manuscript is acting in the interests of an open society; and the group that is trying to bring this manuscript into public view is acting as an enemy of open society?
Peer review 101. Pronouncements are examined and discussed by scientists. Here's the chance that the proponents of a new "theory" have been asking for. How about welcoming it?
Yes, indeed, in an open society, published books are attacked. But the reader seems to have lost track of the fact that, in this case, the manuscript was seized from the publisher. That is a typical closed-society tactic. It also signals that Darwinism is a bankrupt ideology.
After thirty-four years in publishing, the comfort I can offer publishers is that those who engage in such tactics have no moral certainty of their own position. And indeed they should not.
(Note: If this is not the story you were looking for, see the Blog service note below or the stories listed in the sidebar. )
Blog service note: Did you come here looking for any of the following stories?
- The op-ed by Catholic Cardinal Schonborn in the New York Times? Note also the Times's story on the subject, some interesting quotes from major Darwinists to compare with the Catholic Church's view, as expressed by the Cardinal, and an example of the kind of problem with Darwinian philosophy that the Cardinal is talking about.
- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids you to see the film, in case you get too excited, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...
- the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.
Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say “O’Leary is a crummy journalist”; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, “O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983,” well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.