DSM as for Stephen Meyer's article:

"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, the quote by the society sums says it all.

"The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history"

So essentially did not meet the requirements for scientific rigour and R. Sternberg paid the price for editorial negligence that the producer of "the chaser" paid for their skit.

The articles are not excluded for their message, but because of "such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known" or in layman's terms because of the bogus methods used to reach a conclusion.

Like wise the link you provided to Carl Wieland's RATE site is so bogus that as an engineer, I can already see the gaping holes in their "discoveries".

Finally, considering that in 1981 the DNA molecule had only been discovered for 28yrs Crick's comment was about the scarcity of information not suggesting intelligent design.

From what I can see, "creationist science" is an oxymoron.

shadowm QUOTE<<The Council,..deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings>>look up what deemed means

why was it deemed<<because the subject matter represents such a significant departure..from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known>>

so we have a deemed measure that overrules and opposing science as a matter of policy,thus shadows addendum is a creation over and aBOUVE THE REASONS HE JUST POSTULATED

TO WIT the new scxience info presented represents a ''significant departure...from the nearl;y...lol..purely systamised content''the journal purveyed for over 100 years

note not one mention of the lkey words in the shadows reply<< So essentially did not meet the requirements for scientific rigour>>scientific rigour indeed shadow

[please mate..point out where that was SAID...thats your made up rebutal..[putting scientific rigour where it said represents a departure from their religiously held evolutionary/zeal]...

you must have read..that they are deaf to anything deemed creationist..its in their constituted articles...as have been posted in previous debates..[ie IT WAS A POLICY position to reject it..[its their policy to reject anything not to their peer revieuw/status quo]

just like science has all ways/had the flat earth vieuw to new info,..and creation is a taboo subject to science policy..[they simply cant accept creation,..are thus blind to any dicusion on the topic]..

they thus DEEM it a..'significant departure''..from the statis quo[and mindless commentators..then claim it was rejected for its science

from
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2194
Darwinists Impose Gag Rule on Science
Try to Thwart Intellectual Freedom
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 8, 2004

SEATTLE, SEP. 8 – Amidst controversy over a peer-reviewed scientific article arguing for the intelligent design of life, the biological society responsible for the journal in which the article appeared has imposed a gag rule to avoid publication of future articles with the same perspective. The society attempted to justify its action by citing a 1999 policy statement from the AAAS asserting that the theory of intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

“Instead of addressing the paper’s arguments or inviting counterarguments or rebuttal, the society has resorted to affirming what amounts to a doctrinal statement in an effort to stifle scientific debate,” said Dr. John West, associate director. “They’re trying to stop scientific discussion before it even starts.”

In its statement released Tuesday, The Biological Society of Washington made clear that articles discussing evidence of intelligent design “will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings,” even if an article on the matter passes peer review. The peer-reviewed article that has generated the controversy, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” was written by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture Director Dr. Stephen Meyer. In it, Meyer argues that the theory of intelligent design explains the origin of the genetic information in early animal forms better than current materialistic theories of evolution.

In recent news coverage of the controversy in The Scientist, Richard Sternberg, editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, confirmed that Meyer’s article went through the normal peer-review process, and that the three peer reviewers "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions.”

“This action restricts intellectual freedom,” said Rob Crowther, the CSC’s Director of Communications. “It says that the journal shouldn’t allow its editors or its peer reviewers to even consider a scientific article that discusses evidence of design in nature.

That’s dogma, not science.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

UOG,

Your grasp of English is as poor as your grasp on science.

The "council deemed" could read:
- The council came to the conclusion or
- the council found

The article was peer reviewed only by the editor Sternberg as he tried to excuse himself:

"As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself."

This was in spite of:
- There being 3 other collegues involved in peer review that were better qualified,
- Sternberg being a member of a creationist group afiliated with the author of the paper. A clear conflict of interest.

Sternberg in a clear breach of ethics abused his position to circumvent the peer review process and publish a paper in which he had a personal interest.

For creationists to use this to claim scientific validity or intellectual discrimination is morally bankrupt.

I doubt Sternberg will ever find an editorial job at a reputable journal. Perhaps he should try the national enquirer.