Sorry for offending you. It is just incorrect to say only two paragraphs of the paper deal with ID. From my read through, almost the entire paper is reliant u

Sorry for offending you. It is just incorrect to say only two paragraphs of the paper deal with ID. From my read through, almost the entire paper is reliant upon various ID literature and arguments, which is called out explicitly. It is not subtle in the slightest. I get the paper's arguments are debated by biologists. But I still don't understand how this at all relates to the big disclaimer about the authors' connections and claiming because of these connections the paper is not suitable for publishing in the journal, which they have published after a peer review. Makes no sense to me, and I'm really not tracking your explanation. > Do you really think most biologists are trained to recognize ID authors, or understand when "design" is meant to only mean "intelligent design"? Why do biologists have to be trained to recognize ID authors? They don't have to be trained to recognize information theorists, or computer scientists, or any other hosts of independent disciplines that could be relevant to biology. And don't the authors clearly point out they are intending 'design' in the sense we attribute to humans, i.e. intelligent designers? Seems that way to me. Sorry, I am dense, I am really not understanding your point. It sounds to me like you want to imply some sort of deception on the part of the authors, but for all the reasons I've stated, this is entirely non obvious to me, and the journal's disclaimer still comes across as light censorship in the form of well poisoning, so I will have to disengage from this discussion. I wish you well.