Sorry to visit the Meyer affair yet again, but a recent letter to Nature makes a point that bears highlighting. The letter, by Vladimir Svetlov, a microbiologist at Ohio State University, chides Nature for making such a big deal out of the fact that a pro-ID article was published in a peer-reviewed journal science journal.
â€œI cannot in all honesty share in the anxiety surrounding publication of a dubious paper on â€˜intelligent designâ€™â€”regarded by most scientists as a version of creationismâ€”in a journal with an impact factor of less than one,â€ says Svetlov. â€œYour News story "Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design" (Nature 431, 114; 2004) suggests that getting an intelligent-design paper into a peer-reviewed journal is a huge achievement for creationism.â€
To the contrary, he argues, the real surprise is that ID proponents didnâ€™t get such a publication earlier.
Why? Because â€œone can publish just about anything if one goes far enough down the list of impact factors. There are papers all around us containing problems glaring enough to fail their authors in undergraduate midterm exams.â€
Svetlov may not understand why the publication of Meyerâ€™s paper was such a big deal. As I pointed out in my first piece on this topic, itâ€™s a big deal because the anti-ID crowd has invested so much in the claim that ID has never published in peer-reviewed publications (which is a canard to begin with; see â€œMedia Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversyâ€ on the Discovery Instituteâ€™s Web site). Itâ€™s also a big deal because ID proponents are consistently denied a level playing field. And getting published despite the unfairness is a significant accomplishment.
But Svetlovâ€™s point about the ease of publishing bad science is an interesting one. For one thing, it exposes the double standard of those who have dedicated their lives (and livelihoods) to defending the public from the allegedly â€œbad scienceâ€ of intelligent design while doing nothing about the genuinely bad science thatâ€™s published in many journals. (This is eerily reminiscent, by the way, of what happened with biology textbooks. While the anti-ID folks were out guarding the schools from the â€œbad scienceâ€ of intelligent design, they serenely accepted even the most egregious errors, as documented in Jonathan Wellâ€™s book, Icons of Evolution, in textbooks used by millions of kids.)
More interesting, however, is the conundrum Svetlovâ€™s letter poses for the anti-ID community. There have been signs that the anti-ID folks want to back away from making publication in peer reviewed journals a touchstone of good science. Not a bad idea. But doing so affirms the likelihood that peer-reviewed journals have published some rubbishâ€”maybe a good deal of it, as Svetlov asserts. And if thatâ€™s true, it diminishes the cultural authority that the science establishment has relied on to keep ID and criticisms of Darwinism out of public school science classrooms.
Anti-IDists seem to know this and are working both sides of the street. On the one hand, as Iâ€™ve noted elsewhere, they seem to be downplaying the importance and validity of peer reviewâ€”but only to a limited extent. On the other hand, theyâ€™re still trying make it look as if Meyerâ€™s paper was published only through chicaneryâ€”and therefore doesnâ€™t count as a peer-reviewed article.
Strategically, this is probably the best thing they can do. But if some enterprising team of young scholars decided to document Svetlovâ€™s claimsâ€”the way Jonathan Wells did on a smaller scale with biology textbook errorsâ€”the whole issue of ID and peer review could be rendered moot in the ensuing controversy.
Of course, this is just my speculation. But what if it really happened?
No Pingbacks for this post yet...
|<< <||> >>|
Evolution has become a favorite topic of the news media recently, but for some reason, they never seem to get the story straight. The staff at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture started this Blog to set the record straight and make sure you knew "the rest of the story".
A blogger from New England offers his intelligent reasoning.
We are a group of individuals, coming from diverse backgrounds and not speaking for any organization, who have found common ground around teleological concepts, including intelligent design. We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides. We hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation.
Website dedicated to comparing scenes from the "Inherit the Wind" movie with factual information from actual Scopes Trial. View 37 clips from the movie and decide for yourself if this movie is more fact or fiction.
Don Cicchetti blogs on: Culture, Music, Faith, Intelligent Design, Guitar, Audio
Australian biologist Stephen E. Jones maintains one of the best origins "quote" databases around. He is meticulous about accuracy and working from original sources.
Most guys going through midlife crisis buy a convertible. Austrialian Stephen E. Jones went back to college to get a biology degree and is now a proponent of ID and common ancestry.
Complete zipped downloadable pdf copy of David Stove's devastating, and yet hard-to-find, critique of neo-Darwinism entitled "Darwinian Fairytales"
Intelligent Design The Future is a multiple contributor weblog whose participants include the nation's leading design scientists and theorists: biochemist Michael Behe, mathematician William Dembski, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, philosophers of science Stephen Meyer, and Jay Richards, philosopher of biology Paul Nelson, molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, and science writer Jonathan Witt. Posts will focus primarily on the intellectual issues at stake in the debate over intelligent design, rather than its implications for education or public policy.
A Philosopher's Journey: Political and cultural reflections of John Mark N. Reynolds. Dr. Reynolds is Director of the Torrey Honors Institute at