Email from Theology and Science on December 1, 2015
Dear Dr. Roemer:
We regret to inform you that our reviewers have now considered your paper but unfortunately feel it unsuitable for publication in Theology and Science. For your information we attach the reviewer comments at the bottom of this email. We hope you will find them to be constructive and helpful. You are of course now free to submit the paper elsewhere should you choose to do so.

Thank you for considering Theology and Science. We hope the outcome of this specific submission will not
discourage you from the submission of future manuscripts.
Ted Peters and Robert John Russell

Comments to the Author
There are numerous serious problems with this paper. I list only a few
  1. Comparison of a putative problem involving an article in the American Journal of Physics with Nazi treatment of Jews is absurd.
  2. Much of the paper ­ communications with physics chairs, college presidents, scientific organizations and a congressional staff person, the Sternberg case, etc. ­ appears to be an attempt to make the Styer article into the tip of an iceberg of religious persecution on a national scale. It isn’t.
  3. Claims are made here that arguments in the article in question are “self-­refuting” and “absurd,” but no attempt is made to show that that is the case. One cannot expect readers of Theology & Science to accept such assertions with no proof.
  4. The statement that the article “criticizes a Christian apologist, not a Christian physicist” is disingenuous, as is the claim that his error was “understandable” because he “had not studied thermodynamics.” While Morris was not a physicist, he was a mechanical engineer and his arguments that were being criticized involved physics, ­in particular, thermodynamics.
  5. Insinuations about the honesty and integrity of other scholars, made with no supporting evidence at all, are highly unethical.

Email from David Roemer to Ted Peters and Robert Russell

Dear Mr. Peters and Mr. Russell,
I am hereby requesting that we set up a meeting about this scandal. At the meeting I will explain why the article is
absurd and will attempt to explain why it is not being retracted. These are my responses to the five comments:
  1. The article does not assume ("putative problem") that the AJP Styer article is scientifically absurd. The article asserts that the article is absurd. By refusing to retract the article, the AJP is asserting that the article is not absurd. The article does not compare American pseudoscience with Nazi genocide. The article compares keeping the pseudoscience a secret and keeping the mass murders a secret.
  2. My website has 588 proofs of delivery to people who profess to believe in the integrity of science in the United States. This means that more people in the United States are guilty of lying about science to promote atheism then there are people who promote the theory of intelligent design.
  3. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the editors of Theology and Science to determine whether I am right in saying the article is self­-refuting and absurd.
  4. I think the reviewers were so upset by the thought that a peer-­reviewed physics article about evolution is nonsense that they could not think straight.
  5. The article says, "I mailed 23 letters with certificates of mailing to 23 presidents of colleges, secular and religious, criticizing the character of their physics chairs for helping the AJP to cover up its mistake." This is not an insinuation. It is a public accusation that I will continue to make until someone explains to me why I am wrong.

For your information, I'v attached the correspondence I'v had with Perspectives on History about this article.
Very truly yours,
David Roemer