To give some more information.
The new article is by the “BioLogos Editorial Team.” As far as I know, there are no scientists on this team. But note mentions that they relied on my expertise.
The reference to me is one reason I needed to make this statement. As the details of this come to light, I need to protect my scientific reputation here. I need to be on the record now that I did not advise this, nor did I agree with this. To me it looks like a cover up.
My Involvement
I should clarify my involvement in this. A very similar note was posted on this article in January 2020 on an unmodified version of the article. The note acknowledged some errors and claimed the conclusions were unchanged. This was transparently false. I did not mention it publicly because its best to give people time to address these matters privately. I quickly contacted BioLogos to inform them of this error. I substantiated this with a quote.
About half a year later, in October 2020, BioLogos responded. Their response:
Your claims are not substantiated.
Okay. That’s not true. So be it. Life goes on.
Now, in June 11, 2020, about 1.5 years later after I first point this out, the original article is deleted. A new article at a new web address comes up as a “revised” version of the article. The false claim about the conclusions of the article being unchanged is still there. It appears that the primary way my expertise was used was to identify the key quote of the conclusions of the article to delete.
I cannot state strongly enough how much I disagree with this. It is good (and required) that BioLogos acknowledged me in the note, but I need to be 100% clear that this is not at all what I recommended.
Did I Misread Something?
Of course, I also might be misreading something. I also want to know if I missed something. So far, it seems, that no one has been able to give a justification for the claim:
The conclusion of the article is unchanged
What Does @glipsnort Think?
At this point I should state the obvious. The article also claims to rely on expertise from @glipsnort . He also must be concerned about how this might blow back on his reputation.
@glipsnort, how were you involved with this? Do you have any information to add that show me how I’m misreading this? Or do you also think this is a mistake that should be corrected?
By asking those questions, I am not accusing @glipsnort of anything to be clear. Most likely he has a perfectly benign explanation very similar to mine own. Just like me, his name is attached to the article. When people wonder about this, they are going to come to the scientists named in the article’s note. I am sure he will be fielding many questions about this. These are my questions to him now.
Looking forward to hearing from you on this @glipsnort, and I am glad you are in our community!