|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2004 : 21:12:53
|
As pointed out by the SFN staff in the weekly summary:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=17&fldAuto=163
A piece on intelligent design has made it into a peer reviewed journal. Full text of the article is here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage
And just follow the link in the Skeptic Summary for a well written review of the article.
I'm not (yet) knowledgable enough in the field of biology to debunk a pro like Meyers. However, I'm not sure why these people persist in calling ID science.
ID requires you to assume design in order to prove a designer. It's not testable. It's not science.
So how does ID make it into a peer reviewed scientific journal?
[Moved to the Creation/Evolution folder (because for the most part, ID is creationism in disguise) - Dave W.]
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 22:59:10 [Permalink]
|
Kil, that Panda's Thumb article is what's linked to in Skeptic Summary.
Dude wrote:quote:
So how does ID make it into a peer reviewed scientific journal?
In the Panda's Thumb article, one can read:A Long Walk Off a Short Peer Review
The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (PBSW) is a respected, if somewhat obscure, biological journal specializing in papers of a systematic and taxonomic nature, such as the description of new species. A review of issues in evolutionary theory is decidedly not its typical fare, even disregarding the creationist nature of Meyer's paper. The fact that the paper is both out of the journal's typical sphere of publication, as well as dismal scientifically, raises the question of how it made it past peer review. The answer probably lies in the editor, Richard von Sternberg. Sternberg happens to be a creationist and ID fellow traveler who is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College in Tennessee. (The BSG is a research group devoted to the determination of the created kinds of Genesis. We are NOT making this up!) Sternberg was also a signatory of the Discovery Institute's “100 Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism” statement. [3] Given R. v. Sternberg's creationist leanings, it seems plausible to surmise that the paper received some editorial shepherding through the peer review process. Given the abysmal quality of the science surrounding both information theory and the Cambrian explosion, it seems unlikely that it received review by experts in those fields. One wonders if the paper saw peer review at all. The next paragraph goes on to discuss the possible political ramifications, which are a little on the scary side. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 23:09:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Kil, that Panda's Thumb article is what's linked to in Skeptic Summary.
Ooooops. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2004 : 00:29:28 [Permalink]
|
| I don't suppose it's the first time politics reared its ugly head in a science setting. How sad. It'd bad enough one has to fight to put science into political decisions. But when politics tries to influence science it shows how poorly they understand what science is all about. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2004 : 21:51:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't suppose it's the first time politics reared its ugly head in a science setting. How sad. It'd bad enough one has to fight to put science into political decisions.
The Bush administration has dome alot of damage to real science in the US. They don't allow scientists who don't believe in the same fundie woo-woo crap, that the right wing is so laden with, on any real decision making body or international advisory body.
An article about it...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/16/bush.scientists.ap/index.html
And a nice link with info....
http://www.ucsusa.org/
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
