Posted on 09/17/2004 7:09:02 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
A pro-Darwin lobbying group is being accused of trying to censor a published and peer-reviewed scientific article that deals favorably with the theory of intelligent design.
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) claims the article by Dr. Stephen Meyer is "substandard science" and should not have been published by the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. But Dr. John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), says the NCSE has flip-flopped just like a politician.
"The refrain of Darwinists up till this point has been intelligent design isn't science because its proponents don't publish peer-reviewed articles," West says. "That has always been false; in fact, scientists have been publishing peer-reviewed articles about their ideas on intelligent design." Now, however, he says the scientists who want to exclude intelligent design and promote Darwinist science cannot ignore West's paper, because it has appeared in "a very standard, peer-reviewed biology journal."
In the article, titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Meyer argues that the theory of intelligent design explains the origin of the genetic information in early animal forms better than current materialistic theories of evolution. But when his work appeared in Proceedings, the executive director of the NCSE claimed it was "too bad" the biology journal saw fit to publish Meyer's paper, since it was scientifically substandard.
However, the editor of Proceedings, which is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, confirmed that the article was put through the standard peer-review process and that the three reviewers were eminently qualified. However, since the article appeared, the journal's editor (Richard Sternberg) and the publication itself have been attacked from several quarters.
The Biological Society of Washington has distanced itself from the article and from Sternberg, accusing him of bad judgment. Meanwhile, a recent report in Nature describes Proceedings as a "low-impact journal" and quotes a Brown University biologist as saying "peer review isn't a guarantee of accuracy."
Dr. Meyer himself has noted the double standard being applied to his article. "Until a few days ago," he says, "Darwinists have argued that intelligent design isn't science because it hasn't been published in peer-reviewed journals. But now that an increasing number of scientists are making their case for design in scientific publications, Darwinists are ready to disown peer review -- temporarily, I'm sure."
Although most scientists claim to espouse objectivity in the interest of truth, the CSC's Dr. West says this controversy over Meyer's article exposes the basic "intolerance of Darwinian fundamentalists who want to stop the discussion in science even before it starts," and he is forced to wonder, "What are they afraid of?" According to the CSC spokesman, pro-Darwin groups like the NCSE want to squelch scientific debate because Meyer's article flies in the face of their entrenched evolutionary thinking.
"These groups typically say that the evidence is so overwhelming for Darwin's theory of evolution that there can't be any serious question about it," West says, "but then, apparently, they're afraid of even allowing one article that would be critical of it, even if it passes peer review. It's so dangerous they can't even allow it."
The Center's associate director finds it ironic that the NCSE has criticized pro-intelligent design scientists ad nauseum for failing to publish in respected and peer-evaluated scientific journals. Now, when that condition has been met, West says the pro-Darwin group wants to argue that the article should have been censored, simply because the NCSE cannot spin it out of existence.
[End Story]
===========================
The Editor of the Peer-reviewed Journal in which Meyer submitted his paper responds to the critics on his web page:
Statements from his webpage:
I hold two PhDs in the area of evolutionary biology, one in molecular (DNA) evolution and the other in systems theory and theoretical biology. I have published more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications. My current areas of research and writing are primarily in the areas of evolutionary theory and systematics.
In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy.
=================================
Many are waiting for Dr. Meyer to respond to his critics. Mike Gene from ARN has already fired a salvo on Meyer's behalf, here:
**********************
What is Intelligent Design? (compliments of ARN.org)
Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece.
The most famous version of the design argument can be found in the work of theologian William Paley, who in 1802 proposed his "watchmaker" thesis. His reasoning went like this:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever. ... But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think the answer which I had before given [would be sufficient].
To the contrary, the fine coordination of all its parts would force us to conclude that:
… the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.
Paley argued that we can draw the same conclusion about many natural objects, such as the eye. Just as a watch’s parts are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of telling time, the parts of an eye are all perfectly adapted for the purpose of seeing. In each case, Paley argued, we discern the marks of an intelligent designer.
Although Paley’s basic notion was sound, and influenced thinkers for decades, Paley never provided a rigorous standard for detecting design in nature. Detecting design depended on such vague standards as being able to discern an object’s "purpose." Moreover, Paley and other "natural theologians" tried to reason from the facts of nature to the existence of a wise and benevolent God.
All of these things made design an easy target for Charles Darwin when he proposed his theory of evolution. Whereas Paley saw a finely-balanced world attesting to a kind and just God, Darwin pointed to nature’s imperfections and brutishness. Although Darwin had once been an admirer of Paley, Darwin’s own observations and experiences—especially the cruel, lingering death of his 9-year-old daughter Annie in 1850—destroyed whatever belief he had in a just and moral universe.
Following the triumph of Darwin’s theory, design theory was all but banished from biology. Since the 1980s, however, advances in biology have convinced a new generation of scholars that Darwin’s theory was inadequate to account for the sheer complexity of living things. These scholars—chemists, biologists, mathematicians and philosophers of science—began to reconsider design theory. They formulated a new view of design that avoids the pitfalls of previous versions.
Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."
Molodyets.
Ping
Seems to me to be one of 2 important issues. The other being that peer review is simply a gateway. Now the rest of the field gets to chime in with their objections. That appears to be proceeding.
There is a difference between objecting to the science and objecting to the publishing an article from a controversial perspective.
"We aren't sure HOW the genetic matieral came to be, or what EXACTLY caused the frog to leave the ocean, but we KNOW IT WASN'T GOD!"
Of course it's faulty science. Either ID is a euphamism for divine creationism, in which case it's outside the realm of science, or it has the problem of who designed the intelligent designer. Either way, while it may possibly be true, it isn't science. What observation can you make that would lead you to conclusively say that something is NOT designed? If there is no such observation, then ID is not falsifiable and is thus not science.
Dembski:
Indeed, who sets the rules of science? The very demand that science explain in terms of natural rather than intelligent causes is itself applied selectively. Whole branches of science already presuppose that features of the natural world can display unequivocal marks of intelligence causation, thereby clearly signaling the activity of an intelligent designer (cf. anthropology, archeology, and forensic science). Nor need the intelligences inferred in this way necessarily all be human or even earthbound. Consider, for instance, NASA's SETI program (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) in which certain radio signals from outer space would with full confidence be interpreted as signaling the presence of an extra-terrestrial intelligence. There are reliable criteria for inferring intelligent causes. Certain special sciences already admit as much. Why then refuse their admission into biology?
Ping.
I would settle for just knowing where all the nothing came from.
The Darwinists are Dan Rather. Their "outing" is in progress.
It's been published. How in heck can it be "censored"? If this person got something published, and now the larger scientific community is shredding his work, TOUGH. IDers are beginning to whine more than Libertarians.
I hope you're not referring to the people at the P-Thumb as the "larger scientific community."
Of course, Meyer is wrong (either from ignorance or mendacity) here. ID isn't published (much) in peer-reviewed journals because it isn't science. Meyer's article in PBSW is a good example; the critiques of this article show why it isn't science but rather polemics sans foundation. If Meyer can't stand the criticism, he should leave the kitchen.
"Entrenched evolutionary thinking???" More like hidebound ideological commitments!
ID isn't averse to evolution. ID scientists just suspect there's more to it than "matter in motion" and blind, random chance. Which seems eminently sensible to me, FWIW.
Thanks for this (aggravating!!!) post, M-M!
Creationists seem to think that critiquing an article is the same as censoring it.
Yes. You'll notice MA did not address that question at all in his response.
The answer should be obvious. Scientists (and philosophers of science) set the rules for what is science. This is as it should be. Consider if someone presented a text in Hebrew and claimed it as a previously unknown book of the Bible, who would decide if this claim is true? Who would decide if it were really the Word of God or not? Certainly not scientists, but rather clergymen and theologians. Defining science should be done by people who study it. The difference between accepting intellegence in things like SETI and in biology is that in the biology case, by accepting intelligence you are assuming the very phenomenon you are trying to explain. You are saying that intelligent human beings exist because of the design of some other intelligent being. This then begs the question of where did the other intelligent being come from. You either get an ad infinitum regression, ie. some other intelligent being number 3 designed intelligent being number 2, and intelligent being number 4 designed number 3, etc., or you arrive at God. The first case is absurd and the second is not science. Science, by definition of its methods, seeks testable physical explanations for physical phenomena. God certainly is not a testable, physical explanation. Indeed, that's what faith is all about, believing in God despite the fact that there's no physical evidence for such a belief. I am NOT arguing that intelligent design cannot possibly be true. Not all truth comes from science. I am simply arguing that ID does not belong in a science journal (or a science classroom for that matter).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.