Replies

Darwin was not subjected to peer review – neither was Newton or Galileo. Ergo, the quality of the science is not determined by whether it not it survived a peer-review.

True. But given the publishing record of ID, bashing the peer-review system is really all they've got to say for themselves -- other then doing the ol' razzle-dazzle before befuddled schoolboard members.

There are examples of good science that did indeed have to struggle against the riggors of the peer-review system. The theory of continental drift comes to mind. But its advocates kept piling up evidence, and eventually the logjam broke. That's how it works. That's how the ID advocates should be playing the game -- by piling up evidence. So far, all they do is point out what they claim are unexplained anomalies -- some of which have actually been explained -- for example: The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller.

In any event, pointing to anomalies (or alleged anomalies) in the prevailing theory is most definitely not the same thing as presenting an alternative scientific theory. Example: Mercury's orbit was known for a long time to be anomalous, but that alone didn't make anyone famous.

Finally, here's some useful info on Peer Review. Near the end of that article is a section on "Famous papers which were not peer-reviewed," and another section on "Peer review and fraud."

Thank you for your replies and links!

PatrickHenry: But given the publishing record of ID, bashing the peer-review system is really all they've got to say for themselves -- other then doing the ol' razzle-dazzle before befuddled schoolboard members.

That old razzle-dazzle is my objection here. Sometimes evolution threads look like the card game "battle" as each side trumps the other with yet another third party article. Some have compiled exhaustive lists of play and trump links which help newcomers get past the 'boilerplate' so that new discussion can commence. But for an oldtimer like me on these threads, the subject gets stale fast when posters play "battle". Conversely, the discussion here has been based on independent thinking and I find that quite delightful.

BTW, the school board meetings also strike me as a game of "battle". Each side throws rational alternative views on the table and ultimately both sides complain that the other's theory is a fabrication and is not falsifiable. Boasts of "explanatory power" and accusations of "just so" stories go back and forth. A case in point:

DrJacques:Now to go directly to the point about "the quality of science" you raise in your last response I defy you or anyone else to point out one single thing within the above quoted conclusions about how "purposive or intelligent design" is "a causally adequate explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent" that can be tested scientifically. There simply is none and as scientific scholarship it is woefully deficient.

Both sides are blinded to its applicability to their own theory, but this is the same objection raised by Sir Carl Popper in Science as Falsification:

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment.

The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their "clinical observations." …

But back to peer review and the article and publisher statement.

I did not know when I posted the link to the article that it was reviewed only by the editor. Nor did I know that the publisher issued a statement claiming it went against their "standards". I do, however, have a long-standing distaste for intellectual gatekeepers with an ideological bone to pick. Ideology does not belong in science - either in the work product or the keeping of journalistic gates.

The article reads to me as an essay summarizing the state-of-the-art in competing theories, not as a presentation of empirical test results, predictions, etc. If anyone wishes to discuss the theories on that basis, or as they are summarized, that is fine with me and I'll be glad to participate (unless it devolves into a game of 'battle').