The Center for Science & Culture
Following the evidence where it leads
Dissent From Darwin "Goes Global" as Over 600 Scientists From Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory
Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org reads, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
The fastest growing segment of the list is scientists from outside the United States. International scientists now represent just over 12% of all signers, and as a group has seen nearly 40% growth in the past four months.
"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico. "Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," added Leguizamon. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as George Bernard Shaw used to say."
Click here to read the rest.
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design
You've probably heard critics of intelligent design claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists "aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data." Of course that simply isn't true. Scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. The Discovery Institute website provides an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design.
Click here to see a list of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design.
Following the evidence where it leads
Dissent From Darwin "Goes Global" as Over 600 Scientists From Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory
Over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org reads, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
The fastest growing segment of the list is scientists from outside the United States. International scientists now represent just over 12% of all signers, and as a group has seen nearly 40% growth in the past four months.
"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico. "Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," added Leguizamon. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as George Bernard Shaw used to say."
Click here to read the rest.
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design
You've probably heard critics of intelligent design claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists "aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data." Of course that simply isn't true. Scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. The Discovery Institute website provides an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design.
Click here to see a list of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of intelligent design.
13 comments:
600? Wow.
Meanwhile, the science societies from 68 nations signed a letter noting the value, durability and accuracy of evolution (Norway was inadvertantly left out of early reports).
Here's a story on it: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1803142,00.html; and another here: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/06/21/evolution.html
Here's the statement: http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
Yeah, it's only 68 against 600 scientists, but still, one must pay attention to those who gather internationally, across cultures, to make such a statement.
But of course, it's 68 nations against 600. Perhaps that carries more weight?
How does a publisher "peer-review" a book? I called and corresponded with the Oxford University Press, and they said they have no peer-review process in place.
The one article in that list which actually looks to be peer-reviewed was noted by the society that published the journal as not peer-reviewed and not within the guidelines of the society for publication.
I do not think a credible case can be made that this is a list of peer-review articles of intelligent design, since most are chapters in books, and chapters in books as diverse as mathematics, rhetoric and theology are not biology journals.
Someone is pulling your leg, Dr. Groothuis, and it's not the scientists who are doing it.
Ed,
The typical procedure at Oxford is for the editor to send the manuscript out to two reviewers who are professionals in the field. These reviewers write up moderately detailed comments and indicate whether, in their opinion, the book should be published. The editor then decides whether to accept the book, to require revisions before reconsideration, or to reject it outright.
This procedure is common across scholarly presses, though the number of reviewers does vary. (Sometimes it is as many as four.)
Tim:
I was just going to write something like this. Thanks. All my books (except the two for Harvest House) have gone through a similar process.
Right -- that's not peer review.
Peer review involves extensive review by no fewer than three experts in the field. If the paper crosses fields, more reviewers are required. The paper would be reviewed for accuracy in all details. For serious science publications, if there are competing views on the topic, at least one distinguished reviewer is recruited from each camp.
None of the papers or articles or books on the Discovery Institute list has undergone such peer review. Not one.
If we concede the two papers that have appeared in peer review journals after going around the peer review process, the list is still puffed up. It's inaccurate.
I expect more here. When you say "a list of peer-reviewed publications" that's what I expect to see. This list was presented to the court in the Dover case, by the way, and rejected. In an impartial tribunal, it can't qualify.
I know you think I'm picking nits. But I'd have to fail kids in my classes were they to pull a similar stunt. Discovery Institute commits serious academic fraud here. Surely we should not support them in that effort.
Ed,
You write:
Peer review involves extensive review by no fewer than three experts in the field.
Hmm ...? Who suddenly decided that 3 is the magic number? Chapter and verse, please. Otherwise, this looks like an attempt on your part to redefine peer review after discovering that (gasp!) Oxford and Cambridge typically send out books to be reviewed by two professional specialists who are the author's peers.
In view of Doug's well-known animadversions against Wikipedia entries, I can't resist pointing out the irony that on this point Wikipedia actually substantiates what he and I are saying as over against Ed:
A publisher sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to others who are experts in the field (who serve as the referees). Usually, there are two or three referees.
Ed also writes:
The paper would be reviewed for accuracy in all details.
This is of course untrue. The peer review process in scientific journals is not intended to catch fraudulent results, as the famous case of Jan Hendrik Schön (15 fraudulent papers in Nature and Science in 2002-03) makes plain.
Peer review means that an in-house editor sends the paper or book or chapter outside to one or more peer reviewers for evaluation. I have never seen three as the magic number either. The Discovery Institute list passes muster by this standard.
To say that Oxford University Press is not using peer review for its academic books is a reductio ad absurdum.
Not any logical trick, merely an observation that what Dembski claims as peer review the Oxford Press denies, nor would it qualify as peer review to get federal research money.
Dembski's using a post-modernist, Humpty-Dumpty definition. He may do that. We don't have to fall for it.
It is particularly absurd to claim that the Campbell book is peer reviewed science, when it's a book on rhetoric.
Such bait-and-switch would be dishonest (and illegal) if committed by any common retailer. It's perhaps not illegal, but still dishonest when done by the Discovery Institute, even wholesale. Especially wholesale.
When scientists talk about peer reviewed research, nothing on that list from the Discovery Institute qualifies.
Does anyone else have any idea how Ed's last post connects to his earlier one -- the claim about "no fewer than three experts" -- that Doug and I have just refuted? I'm not seeing it. It looks like, instead of retracting the claim, Ed's just abusing Bill Dembski.
Comparing federal grants and book manuscripts is comparing apples and aerobics; this isn't even the same topic.
Tim:
You are right Ed's animus gets the better of him on this. ID does have peer reviewed articles to its credit, given the standards of the discipline.
Of course, when Steve Meyer gets a peer-reviewed article published, the Darwinists attack the editor, try to discredit him, and demand that the publicatin never publish ID again.
Tim, I know of no science journal that uses fewer than three reviewers. The formal "peer review" requirements under federal law are much more rigorous -- peer review for a grant can require as many as 30 reviewers -- see here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/
As I noted, I asked Oxford Press, and they do not describe their process as peer review. They are a publishing house, not a scientific peer review journal.
One of the issues here is that in the humanities, "peer review" means something much less rigorous that scientific peer review. Discovery Institute is trying to trade on the humanities version, dishonestly in my mind.
Now, I've dealt with the NIH procedures to which I refer above, and I think that 30 reviewers may be a lot, too many for some publications. I think that process is overly clunky.
But evolution papers go through that clunky process. It's dishonest of ID advocates to claim they are equal in having been vetted so thoroughly.
And I find it especially pernicious that DI claims a book on rhetoric is "peer review science." That's not just a little dishonest. It's a whole cloth lie.
Peer review is indeed intended to catch fraudulent results, and does. It is a federal crime to send fraudulent stuff for publication if the funding is from federal sources, and it is a federal crime to claim fraudulent stuff on one's vita when applying for federal money.
Which is, I suspect, one reason that ID advocates do not bother with the hurly-burly of real research and publications, and why they do not appear in applications for federal grants.
I think it's misleading at best for this blog to claim that DI offers a grand list of peer reviewed articles. By any scientific standard, that is incorrect. If philosophy has lower standards, well, shouldn't we as Christians draw a bright line, and stay on the good side of it?
Wikipedia does not substantiate Discovery Institute's view of peer review, Tim. And, if one reads the entire article, one finds that the FIRST reviews are done to weed out error (fraud); the Wikipedia article on peer review says:
Very general journals such as Science, Nature have extremely stringent standards for publication, and will reject papers which report good quality scientific work that they feel are not breakthroughs in the field. Such journals generally have a two-tier reviewing system. In the first stage, members of the editorial board verify that the paper's findings -- if correct -- would be ground-breaking enough to warrant publication in Science or Nature. Most papers are rejected at this stage. Papers that do pass this 'pre-reviewing' are sent out for in-depth review to outside referees. Even after all reviewers recommend publication and all reviewer criticisms/suggestions for changes have been met, papers may still be returned to the authors for shortening to meet the journal's length limits. With the advent of electronic journal editions, overflow material may be stored in the journals online Electronic Supporting Information archive.
A similar emphasis on novelty exists in general area journals such as the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS). However, these journals generally send out all papers (except blatantly inappropriate ones) for peer reviewing to multiple reviewers. The reviewers are specifically queried not just on the scientific quality and correctness, but also on whether the findings are of interest to the general area readership (chemists of all disciplines, in the case of JACS) or only to a specialist subgroup. In the latter case, the recommendation is usually for publication in a more specialized journal. The editor may offer to authors the option of having the manuscript and reviews forwarded to such a journal with the same publishers (e.g., in the example given, Journal of Organic Chemistry, Journal of Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry,...). if the reviewer reports warrant such a decision (i.e., they boil down to "Great work, but too specialized for JACS: publish in ..."), the editor of such a journal may accept the forwarded manuscript without further reviewing.
Some general area journals, such as Physical Review Letters, have strict length limitations. Others, such as JACS, have Letters and Full Papers sections: the Letters sections have strict length limits (two journal pages in the case of JACS) and special novelty requirements.
Do you see any publications in either Nature or Science on the DI list? They are claiming huge breakthroughs -- why would the journals for breakthrough science not appear on the list?
Perhaps more damning, why are there no major biology or evolution journals on the list?
And the question for the prize: Why is there no federally-funded research, or research that adheres to similar strict guidelines against fraud, on the list?
Post a Comment