[Heartlander]

Well, you got me… The article I cited should be peer-reviewed.
Your post should be peer-reviewed, Miller’s article should be peer-reviewed, and Begley’s article should be in a peer-reviewed journal (unless the Wall Street Journal counts).
I will try to submit this post for peer reviewing so we might discuss it…

In the interim…
Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
-Frank J. Tipler

[qam1]

Well, you got me… The article I cited should be peer-reviewed.

And we already know the results of what will happen if they even tried.

His whole argument boils down to I don't understand (He uses the word "Vague" in that article over and over) the evolution of the Flagellum so it must be designed.

Scientifically it would be shot down because the flagellum didn't evolve from the TTSS system instead they have a common ancestor so his methodology is flawed right at the onset.

Your post should be peer-reviewed, Miller’s article should be peer-reviewed, and Begley’s article should be in a peer-reviewed journal (unless the Wall Street Journal counts). I will try to submit this post for peer reviewing so we might discuss it…

All post here are peer reviewed, In this case our peers are fellow freepers and the moderators.

In the interim… Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy? -Frank J. Tipler

Oh boo hoo, The ol' I'm a victim of a conspiracy card

[Junior]

Don't be a snot. Popular articles on science need not be peer reviewed, though they should be based upon peer-reviewed works. This allows those who are interested to verify the claims made in the article. "Peer-reviewed" means the claims in the paper have been tested by qualified individuals who have reproduced the results and thus vouch for the veracity of the paper.

One of the reasons it would be nice to have a link or reference to the paper the popular article is based upon would be check the veracity of any quotes from that paper. Certain groups have shown a proclivity for taking scientific quotes out of context in an effort to bolster those groups' positions.

Of course, when one's position is not supported by the data, it is always best to "attack the messenger" -- in this case the peer-review process.