Scientific Censorship and Evolution
Mahlon G. Kelly
mgk at darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU
Fri Apr 14 01:59:49 EST 1995
vy001d at uhura.cc.rochester.edu writes:
> It is quite possible that this article was not published because its
> arguments are so weak, not because it is against common beliefs. The author
> does not seem to have a very good grasp of the theories he or she is trying
> to refute. The main goal of this article seems to be antagonism, not
> reinterpretation. I would not publish it either.
> Vic Yuschuk
In addition, by trying to make an emotional link between Marx,
Freud, and Darwin, the author weakens his point. He then
approaches neo-Darwinism as if it is an extension of Darwin's
ideas in the same sense that Stalin was an extension of Marx.
Obviously that is an argument by analogy that is false.
I can see NO science in the article.
Associate Professor (Emeritus)
University of Virginia
mgk at darwin.clas.virginia.edu
More information about the Mol-evol