Reply to comment

I wasn't criticizing Kjellstrom's science, just his statement that his interesting critique might be abused by creationists. My point was creationists use any critique by scientists as a way to say, "See, I told you this was ONLY a theory."

I agree that he should continue submitting the paper and responding to any specific critiques he gets along the way.

I've had the same experience both with my scientific work and my book proposals. One rejection, or even ten, does not mean it isn't worthy of publication.

But by the same token, a rejection may teach you something and lead you to valuable revisions. My reaction, as someone who doesn't know much about this particular argument, was that it seemed quite reasonable and almost obvious. Therefore I wondered whether it was truly novel or just a different statement of previously published work.

Food for thought?

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)