Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience

[Tiggy]

This particular bit of Creationist dishonesty needs to be archived.

Jorge recently started a thread, then for some reason demanded that it be deleted:

1. I had promised you that the two papers that I co-authored would soon be published, remember?

Well, publication has occurred and release is supposed to be very soon - within days. However ...

2. ... we may be witnessing in real time another episode of 'EXPELLED'.

3. The Proceedings from the symposium, contained in a book titled Biological Information: New Perspectives,
is now encountering the usual attempts at censorship practiced by the 'Thought Police' -- you know, the
type of censorship that the Evo-Faithful loudly deny happens at all.

4. This was strictly a scientific symposium -- I know, I was there from start to finish.
Every paper was scrutinized to be/remain science ... pure science.

5. The publisher is Springer-Verlag. I assure you, the papers were heavily peer-reviewed.
But guess what? They now want to do additional peer-review because of "complaints". OMG !

6. The Evo-Faithful complain that intelligent design isn't science "because it's not peer-reviewed."
When it is peer-reviewed, they say, "It shouldn't have been peer-reviewed because it's not science."

Now where did I put my shotgun?


7. In passing, do you see why I use the term "dishonest" as often as I do? Do you? Huh? Do you? It fits!


8. Lastly, wanna guess who's already involved?
Yup, you guessed it, the NCSE : the 'witch' and her broomstick.

9. More details here : http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/02/...print-id-book/


10. This could turn ugly, very ugly ... stay tuned ...

Jorge

Turns out the DI and Jorge are attempting to cover up the latest bit of Creationist dishonesty.

The IDCers submitted this batch of "papers" from Jorge's recent Intelligent Design Creation conference to Springer in book form called Biological Information: New Perspectives. Apparently the work was deliberately misrepresented as being from a conference sponsored by Cornell, not merely held on the Cornell campus in publicly available rental space.

The book was mistakenly tentatively accepted by some junior editors at Springer based on the Cornell name. When the truth of the matter became clear, Springer pulled the advance notice of the book.

As reported by Allan MacNeill at Panda's thumb:

From the very few bits of information I have been able to gather, the “symposium” was apparently held in the Statler Auditorium in the School of Hotel Administration at the Ithaca campus. Unlike most of the large lecture halls at Cornell, the Statler Auditorium can be rented by outside groups for non-university functions. I know this because I have performed there with the Ithaca Ballet, which used to rent the hall for their local performances. Ergo, it appears that John Sanford and the symposium organizers rented the hall and are now claiming that the event was somehow “a Cornell event” rather than an event held in a rented hall at Cornell.

Statler Auditorium has almost 900 seats, but in looking at the housing reservation at one of the links above, there were apparently only 42 attendees (and that may also include the presenters), so the auditorium would have looked a little…well, shall we say “sparse”?

link

Lots more info at

Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience

Update on Springer “Biological Information: New Perspectives” Volume

and here

Score one for science this week. Evolutionary biologists were horrified by the news that a scholarly press was going to publish a work in favor of intelligent design. But a spokesman for the publishing house confirmed to Inside Higher Ed Wednesday that the book’s publication is on hold as it is subjected to further peer review.

Earlier this week, the Panda’s Thumb, a blog about evolutionary theory, posted an item about a forthcoming book from Springer called Biological Information: New Perspectives. The blog-poster and other commenters said the book was a compilation of articles by creationists and intelligent-design proponents and Springer had no business publishing such "creationist pseudoscience."

Eric Merkel-Sobotta, executive vice president of corporate communications at Springer in Germany, said in an e-mail, that the initial proposal for the book was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers. “However, once the complete manuscript had been submitted, the series editors became aware that additional peer review would be necessary,” Merkel-Sobotta said. “This is currently underway, and the automatically generated pre-announcement for the book on Springer has been removed until the peer-reviewers have made their final decision.”

full story

Looks like the DI has gone into full damage control / spin mode.

My guess is that Cornell found out about how its name was being misused and threatened to sue the pants off the DI and the folks who dishonestly misued the connection. All across the web Creationist sites like this one are now erasing all mention of Cornell and issuing disclaimers for CYA purposes.

Too funny!

- T

[lao tzu]

Looks like the DI has gone into full damage control / spin mode.

My guess is that Cornell found out about how its name was being misused and threatened to sue the pants off the DI and the folks who dishonestly misued the connection. All across the web Creationist sites like this one are now erasing all mention of Cornell and issuing disclaimers for CYA purposes.

Too funny!

- T

Sounds like a good guess. $2595 wouldn't be asking anyone to pull threads if he hadn't gotten pull-back orders from his own team. We know DI is shy about showing up in court; the editor list on the proposed proceedings is a DI who's who. Cornell is clearly harmed by this case of identify theft, giving them grounds to sue.

But, you know what, I'd put the brickbat in Springer's hands. The conflagration in academic publishing right now is as hot as I've ever seen it. The push-back from Elsevier's and Springer's lobbying efforts for the Research Works Act is visceral. Springer's entire apologetic for continuing existence has been challenged, and I'm proud to say the charge is being led by mathematicians.

Could be the IDiots are storming a castle that's well on its way to being gunned into rubble.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

I'm sure the EVOloons will be dancing in the streets.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Names are fun.

[pancreasman]

Names are fun.

I notice that all your posts in NatSci are now based on this principle.

[Alleged_Alec]

Names are fun.

And so are ad-hominems, apparently.

[pancreasman]

And so are ad-hominems, apparently.

If you don't have arguments or a technical grasp of the issues that's all you've got left.

[Jorge]

This particular bit of Creationist dishonesty needs to be archived.

Jorge recently started a thread, then for some reason demanded that it be deleted:



Turns out the DI and Jorge are attempting to cover up the latest bit of Creationist dishonesty.

The IDCers submitted this batch of "papers" from Jorge's recent Intelligent Design Creation conference to Springer in book form called Biological Information: New Perspectives. Apparently the work was deliberately misrepresented as being from a conference sponsored by Cornell, not merely held on the Cornell campus in publicly available rental space.

The book was mistakenly tentatively accepted by some junior editors at Springer based on the Cornell name. When the truth of the matter became clear, Springer pulled the advance notice of the book.

As reported by Allan MacNeill at Panda's thumb:




Lots more info at

Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience

Update on Springer “Biological Information: New Perspectives” Volume

and here



Looks like the DI has gone into full damage control / spin mode.

My guess is that Cornell found out about how its name was being misused and threatened to sue the pants off the DI and the folks who dishonestly misued the connection. All across the web Creationist sites like this one are now erasing all mention of Cornell and issuing disclaimers for CYA purposes.

Too funny!

- T

******************************************************************************

I do not know why this thread / OP is still active. I have TWICE requested the mods to remove it.

I requested that they remove my thread and they complied. In Tiggy's typical unethical style, he
circumvented the intent of the law by reposting in his own thread my OP -- an OP that had been
previously REMOVED by the mods.

I am hereby requesting for the THIRD TIME that the moderators of this forum remove this thread
or at the very least my words (Items 1-10) which have previously been deleted from this forum.

Thank you.

Jorge

[showmeproof]

******************************************************************************

I do not know why this thread / OP is still active. I have TWICE requested the mods to remove it.

I requested that they remove my thread and they complied. In Tiggy's typical unethical style, he
circumvented the intent of the law by reposting in his own thread my OP -- an OP that had been
previously REMOVED by the mods.

I am hereby requesting for the THIRD TIME that the moderators of this forum remove this thread
or at the very least my words (Items 1-10) which have previously been deleted from this forum.

Thank you.

Jorge

God forbid you are held accountable for what you post.

[Tiggy]

I do not know why this thread / OP is still active. I have TWICE requested the mods to remove it.

This isn't your thread Jorge.

I requested that they remove my thread and they complied. In Tiggy's typical unethical style, he
circumvented the intent of the law by reposting in his own thread my OP -- an OP that had been previously REMOVED by the mods.

How ethical was it for you guys to misrepresent your Creationist conference as being sponsored by Cornell U?

I am hereby requesting for the THIRD TIME that the moderators of this forum remove this thread
or at the very least my words (Items 1-10) which have previously been deleted from this forum.

They're not your words anymore Jorge. They're my words in my thread.

You are fully welcome to explain your version of event if you think I've gotten anything wrong.

- T

[Jorge]

This isn't your thread Jorge.

I didn't say it was my thread, you MORON. When are you going to learn how to read?

How ethical was it for you guys to misrepresent your Creationist conference as being sponsored by Cornell U?

Nothing was "misrepresented", you DODO. You have this habit of talking about things that
you don't know anything about. Oh, wait, my bad ... it's not a "habit" ... it's just that your
ethics and that of a soiled diaper are on the same level.

They're not your words anymore Jorge. They're my words in my thread.

You are fully welcome to explain your version of event if you think I've gotten anything wrong. - T

******************************************************************

You truly are a SICKO, Tiggy ... S-I-C-K-O !!!

As per your sicko logic, if "in my thread" I use "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth ..."
then, because it is MY thread, those words don't belong to A. Lincoln, they belong to me.

Like I said, you are one sick-sick-sicko creature, Tiggy.

All you have done is unethically posted the words that the mods had already removed.

I am expecting the Moderators to remove MY words from this thread very soon.
For your actions, you also should be removed (i.e., banned). But I doubt that will happen.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

For your actions, you also should be removed (i.e., banned). But I doubt that will happen

Jorge, of late you seem to be spending a lot of posts whinging in a less-than-subtle manner about moderators’ decisions, which I thought was against campus rules, and leaves one asking why do you bother engaging on TWeb if you feel so victimised?

Apparently the work was deliberately misrepresented as being from a conference sponsored by Cornell, not merely held on the Cornell campus in publicly available rental space.

Tiggy, I could not find anything substantiating that it was advertised as being sponsored by Cornell. The wording of the book on Amazon.com did not claim sponsorship just that there was a gathering there, though was carefully constructed so that it could appear as though it was a regular scientific symposium. Any leads on the sponsorship claim please?

[Jorge]

Jorge, of late you seem to be spending a lot of posts whinging in a less-than-subtle manner about moderators’ decisions, which I thought was against campus rules, and leaves one asking why do you bother engaging on TWeb if you feel so victimised?

**********************************************************************************

Your opinion is as distorted, unfair and worthless as it was unsolicited. Kindly shut up!

Jorge

[Omega Red]

**********************************************************************************

Your opinion is as distorted, unfair and worthless as it was unsolicited. Kindly shut up!

Jorge

Obviously touched a nerve. There, there Jorge. Solicitation is not required when you spew with vehmancy in public. The question is valid. All you seem to do is whine and whinge about moderators' decisions over several posts. Do I really need to substantiate that and provide all the links? It obviously has affected you to go on and on about it.

[Jorge]

Obviously touched a nerve. There, there Jorge. Solicitation is not required when you spew with vehmancy in public. The question is valid. All you seem to do is whine and whinge about moderators' decisions over several posts. Do I really need to substantiate that and provide all the links? It obviously has affected you to go on and on about it.

**********************************************************

The only thing I "go on and on" about is when people resort to distortion and unethical practices.
You know what I mean, just like you are doing here and now.

This was a simple matter : I posted something, I then asked that it be taken down (for important reasons),
and then Tiggy has unethically re-posted what the Moderators had agreed to take down - and did.

So I've asked that MY words be removed from this thread --- MY words --- the ones that had
been previously taken down by the Mods themselves as per my request.

Now, what syllable aren't you understanding?

Jorge