last year, University of Texas El Paso mathematics professor Granville Sewell was prevented from publishing a paper in Applied Mathematics Letters (AML) simply because it was (indirectly) critical of Darwinian evolution.
Sewell’s paper had fully and successfully passed through the peer-review process and was about to be published in AML. Then the Darwin lobby mounted a campaign to pressure AML’s editor into withdrawing the paper. Well’s paper was never published. It was effectively censored.
Sewell’s critics are now being given space in the journal Mathematical Intelligencer (MI) to critique his censored article. Now I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to critique work, but it’s ridiculous that Sewell can’t publish his article staking out his position, while his critics are allowed to publish their article attacking it. In this latest development, Sewell is facing censorship again: MI won’t let him publish his response to critics.
Now If Sewell’s AML paper was so bad that it didn’t deserve to be published, why do his critics feel the need to rebut it? and why is he not allowed to respond to his critics?