If a creationist take a dump in a science journal, and the science journal later flushes it away, does it still stink?

Yes, it surely does. It reeks.

I completely missed this article — no surprise, it seems everyone did — titled “Fossils Evidences (Paleontology) Opposite to Darwin’s Theory,” by Md. Abdul Ahad and Charles D. Michener, in the Journal of Biology and Life Science, and now you can’t read it because the journal retracted it and deleted it.

The first sign that something might be off in this paper is the title. “Fossils Evidences (Paleontology) Opposite to Darwin’s Theory”? Seriously? No one even stopped to notice how ungrammatical it was?

And then there’s the abstract.

Darwin‟s Theory is a central theme of biology and all theories of evolution. Paleontology, the study of fossils provide convincing and the direct evidences for evolution. Save for, if the organisms of same class arise from the same ancestor as Darwin opine; fossil record should provides a series of fossil from the progressive to older deposits, that show stage of intermediate between specialized modern (existing) living organism, but no so found at all. Nevertheless, silicafied wood is a familiar example of plant fossils. Invertebrates have no hard parts, so, they are rarely form fossils but few insects found in amber as fossils. The entire vertebrate fossils are fragmentary bones. For example fossil of dinosaurs are thigh bone, arm bone, teeth, footprints, track, bite etc., and fossils of ancestors of human are skull fragments, teeth, jaws etc. Even these fossils are negligible amount and are not found in the original form but are moulds, casts, compression, impression, etc. The only unchanged fossil is the Woolly mammoth. Furthermore, transitional fossil is absent; claimed transitional fossils of Archaeopteryx and Seymouria are not transitional, they are true bird and true reptile, respectively. Obtain fossil are of fossil of present day organisms or are fossil of extinct organisms, which may form during a universal flood. Fossil evidences prove that humans have not evolve/descent from monkey lower animal. Even Darwin himself agreed in the “Descent of man‟ that origin of human cannot explain by science. Co-discoverer of natural selection Alfred Russel Wallace never believes that human is evolved from lower animal. Moreover, estimation of age of fossil, age of earth by radiometric method and preparation of geological time table (scale) is imaginary as it overlooks 3.5 billion year. Extinction of living organism never produce any new species, if produce, no need of biodiversity conservation convention to prevent extinction. Living fossils prove that there is no evolutionary relationship between fossils and existing organisms. The fathers of modern paleontology and geology opposed evolution. Consequently, paleontology does not provide convincing, strongest, verified, and direct evidences for evolution as well as fossils evidences are opposite to Darwin‟s Theory. Moreover, the scientists of the most countries except a few have no facility to work with fossils; due to lack of technologies even they have no chance to see the fossils too. That is why the evolutionists as well as paleontologists cunningly have shown the fossils as the direct evidences of organic evolution. Darwin stated that if the geological record be perfect then the main objection of his theory natural selection will be greatly dismissed or disappears and he, who rejects these views on the nature of geological record, would rightly reject his whole theory.

Why, that’s nothing but stock creationist assertions, all presented in fractured English in a hodge-podge fashion. It makes absolutely no sense…but it got published.

I kind of suspect that the Journal of Biology and Life Science has an amazingly slackworthy process of review in place. In fact, I dare say the review process probably involves paying the $100 submission fee, and nothing more.

But wait! There’s more! The authors on that paper are Ahad and Michener. Michener is actually a respected entomologist at the University of Kansas — and he was totally surprised to learn that his name was on a retracted paper, since he’d never seen it, contributed nothing to it, and didn’t even know it existed.

So that’s how you publish a creationist paper: find a journal that will take your money and not even bother to proofread, and then just to add that extra veneer of contemptible dishonesty, use a real scientists name as a co-author.