The Questionable Authority

Casey Luskin is once again hard at work in the Discovery Institute quote mines. In his latest effort, he tries to make the case that a recent review article by Kevin Padian and the Panda’s Thumb’s own Nick Matzke contains “veiled threats” designed to intimidate cdesign proponentsists. Casey dives into the quote mines in the first paragraph of the post:

It’s always amusing how evolutionists continually proclaim, and then re-proclaim, the apparent demise of intelligent design (ID) (i.e. ‘no really, this time ID actually is dead!’!). We’re pretty used to that, but then it gets a little creepy when they exude what appears to be an unhealthy pleasure in ID’s (purported) demise. Such was recently the exact case when National Center for Science Education (NCSE) president Kevin Padian and former NCSE spokesman Nick Matzke, in a January issue of Biochemical Journal, published a “review article” claiming that the “case for ID” has “collapsed,” gleefully asserting that “no one with scientific or philosophical integrity is going to take [Discovery Institute or ID] seriously in future.”

Whenever someone from the Discovery Institute quotes a scientist, it’s a good idea to go back to the original source. That’s particularly true in cases like this, where the quoted material consists of several sentence fragments. Unsurprisingly, when we check the original source, we find that the quoted passages occur several paragraphs apart.

The “veiled threat”, as Casey puts it, is found in the phrase “no one … is going to take [DI or ID] seriously in the future.” It might be good to put that phrase in a little more context:

The fact is that the DI took a terrible beating in the Dover trial. ‘ID’, their main industry, which they peddled relentlessly for over a decade as the ‘Next Great Idea’ in science, was revealed as religion, not science at all. The DI’s “Wedge strategy” was exposed and established as a crypto-fundamentalist Christian ideology of politics and social change. Their alleged ‘experts’ withdrew, leaving the defence in confusion. Their amicus briefs, which attempted to introduce expert testimony in the case without the danger of cross-examination, were ignored by the judge (as is typical in bench trials with an extensive record of testimony that is sworn and cross-examined). The media ‘darlings’ of the mid-1990s turned surly and uncommunicative with the press. They refused to participate in the PBS Nova documentary about the trial, unless PBS met demands that would violate the journalistic integrity of any news organization. And they have refused to allow the reprinting of some of their essays and articles, even in toto, by authors who they think will not be supportive of them. The credibility of the DI is inextricably linked to ID, and no one with scientific or philosophical integrity is going to take either of them seriously in future.

It’s difficult for me to see how there’s any kind of a threat – veiled, implicit, or explicit – in that passage. But then I’m not suffering (at least as far as I know) from either paranoia or a desire to depict myself as a martyr. For the explanation of the “threatening” nature of those words, let’s turn to Casey:

Imagine that you’re a pro-ID research biologist and you see leading research journals publishing lead review articles (not editorials, and not letters to the editor, but review articles) declaring that anyone who has “scientific or philosophical integrity” will not take intelligent design “seriously in the future.” What is the effect of such statements? The effect is that the authoritative reviewers send a message to you and others in the community that if you merely hint that you even so much as “take intelligent design seriously,” then you will be subject to all kinds of ridicule and your integrity will be tarnished.

In this style, reason and arguments are secondary, for it’s all about attacks on the person — if you support ID, you lack integrity. Period. Since reputation and integrity means so much in science and academia, this effectively puts a taboo on anything that hints of ID. The message is this: “Taking ID seriously could be harmful to the health of your career, so banish these thoughts from your mind (or keep them to yourself), and fall into line.”

That’s right. Apparently, the entire scientific community takes its marching orders from review articles published in Biochemical Journal. I had no idea biochemists were so powerful. Heck, I had no idea that review articles were that powerful.

Luskin goes on to support his paranoid position by tacking on an email that he allegedly received from a “pro-ID Ph.D. research biologist” who “wished to remain anonymous”. Here’s part of that “letter”:

The “review article” in question contains nothing of scientific merit. There are no interpretations of experimental results, no theories advanced, no biochemical concepts developed. There is no review of the current state of a particular scientific field, either. Instead, the review by Padian and Matzke is a one-sided retelling of a legal trial[5] with some simplistic historical analysis and ersatz theology thrown in. The article conflates creationism and intelligent design, misrepresents the views of intelligent design scientists and the Discovery Institute, and engages in vicious character assassination. It is a blatant attempt to scare people away from intelligent design by proclaiming that “no one with scientific or philosophical integrity is going to take [ID] seriously in future.”

A couple of quick points:

First, given the current state of Intelligent Design “research”, it would be incredibly difficult (at best) to write a review article that focuses on ID and interprets experimental results. It’s at least as hard to review the state of ID as a “scientific field”. On the other hand, given the volume of material available, it’s incredibly easy to review the state of ID as a religious and political exercise.

Second, that’s why ID has no credibility. The Discovery Institute has spent enormous amounts of time, money, and energy promoting ID and other anti-evolution canards before school boards, churches, and miscellaneous political entities. They haven’t even pretended to do a similar amount of scientific research. They turned themselves into the public face of ID, and if there are actually pro-ID researchers out there, somewhere, in the wilderness, alone, doing scientific research, they have only the Discovery Institute to blame if they have a hard time getting anyone to take them seriously.

Oh, and crying about how the phrase “no one with scientific or philosophical integrity is going to take [DI or ID] seriously” is a mean, scary threat isn’t going to help you get taken more seriously, either.

Comments

  1. #1 mrg
    March 20, 2009

    There’s something about C@sey Lusk1n, a “je ne sais quois”, that I find hard to articulate — in that he’s an annoyance that is all the more annoying because of his absolute lack of credibility and substance. It makes expenditure of ammunition on him seem somewhat of an embarrassment.

    The best comparison I can think of is the situation in which one goes to bed and soon realizes there’s a mosquito in the room: “meeeeeEEEEEEEEeeeee …”.

    I recall spending an hour or so one night hunting down that one mosquito — but I had no choice, it was either that or not get any sleep.

    And Lusk1n is the DI’s SPOKESMAN … “you just can’t make this stuff up.”

  2. #2 John Pieret
    March 20, 2009

    Heh! If that’s a threat, what should we make of the last 10 entries at Glenn Morton’s list “The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism,” eight of which are by DI stalwarts? They’re always saying that no one will be taking evolutionary theory seriously … any day now.

  3. #3 Glen Davidson
    March 20, 2009

    if you merely hint that you even so much as “take intelligent design seriously,” then you will be subject to all kinds of ridicule and your integrity will be tarnished.

    And I believe there are indications that if you take phlogiston, geocentrism, and invisible pink unicorns seriously, you’ll be subject to all kinds of ridicule and your integrity will be tarnished.

    Indeed, how could anyone infer integrity in the writings of IDists?

    Well, they never were very good at causality. Furthermore, the only thing they have going for them now is the whine that they’re mistreated not because they don’t have anything to back up their claims, but simply because they make those claims. It’s a constant (and very likely deliberate for many of them) mistaking of the cause of the ridicule that these ridiculous people (at least vis-a-vis ID) have to endure.

    The one good thing is watching them squirm as they’re rightly ridiculed. Do they really expect to receive respect for their utter failure to produce any science of ID?

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

  4. #4 MartinM
    March 20, 2009

    Imagine that you’re a pro-ID research biologist…

    Heh.

  5. #5 T. Bruce McNeely
    March 20, 2009

    “(Intelligent Design)…contains nothing of scientific merit. There are no interpretations of experimental results, no theories advanced, no biochemical concepts developed.”

    There – fixed!

  6. #6 386sx
    March 20, 2009

    Why don’t they just do some science or something. Oh yeah I forgot… nobody will let them. If only people would let them do some science, then they wouldn’t have to be going around lobbying school boards and legislatures. Poor, poor Intelligent Design…

  7. #7 Iason Ouabache
    March 20, 2009

    “It’s always amusing how evolutionists continually proclaim, and then re-proclaim, the apparent demise of intelligent design (ID).”

    This man has some seriously irony deficiency issues.

  8. #8 Erasmus, FCD
    March 20, 2009

    Imagine that you’re a pro-ID research biologist

    that’s where the bullshit started

  9. #9 fnxtr
    March 20, 2009

    Luskin’s just preaching to his choir. I can’t see this exchange changing anyone’s mind, one way or the other.

  10. #10 Jaycubed
    March 20, 2009

    “In this style, reason and arguments are secondary, for it’s all about attacks on the person — if you support ID, you lack integrity. Period.”

    He has this backwards. It is ID that has no integrity as a science based on the actions of and “evidence” provided by its proponents.

    It is not that a proponent of ID automatically has no integrity, period: it is that a proponent of ID who calls himself a scientist has questionable integrity, and needs to demonstrate evidence which can undergo scientific scrutiny in support of their ID proposition.

    IDiots demonstrate their lack of understanding of the scientific method when they complain about the criticisms leveled at their IDeas. If their IDeas have any real value then they will stand up against criticism, even overtly hostile criticism. If they were really scientists they would welcome criticism.

    ID has repeatedly failed and continues to fail the test for scientific veracity.

  11. #11 Glen Davidson
    March 20, 2009

    Imagine that you’re a pro-ID research biologist

    that’s where the bullshit started

    I disagree. They know all about imagining that they’re pro-ID research biologists. And never leave that delusion.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

  12. #12 Kristine
    March 20, 2009

    Who is Luskin even writing for? “Not being taken seriously” means being ignored; a real “pro-ID research biologist” (notice how often they use the word pretend?) should thrive with the pressure off. (Michael Crichton often made this same argument when he railed against the consensus of global climate change.) If anything, gaining attention puts the ID crowd at risk. They don’t handle publicity well, they don’t like it when they’re hiding behind a pseudonym and photos of them at Kansas school board hearings pop up on the internet, they quote-mine to the point of contradicting their earlier quote-mines, etc. They should be grateful to not be taken seriously, because when the spotlight is on them, they make asses of themselves.

    Don’t put a spotlight on the lipstick on a pig.

  13. #13 Stuart Weinstein
    March 20, 2009

    Casey is probably better off spending his time researching Bible Codes in the Dead Sea Scrolls. He does like fragments after all.

  14. #14 tresmal
    March 20, 2009

    “Imagine that you’re a pro-ID research biologist…”

    Imagine that you’re a leprechaun.
    Plus you’re riding a unicorn!
    A magic rainbow colored unicorn!
    Plus you’re also a princess ballerina astronaut!

  15. #15 Sioux Laris
    March 20, 2009

    So someone out there needs EVIDENCE that CL is (another) stupid, lying twit’s uncurbed dog’s “business”?

    To paraphase the DK’s Joker, we “need a better class of criminal [cintelligentdesignreationist]!”

  16. #16 Helena
    March 21, 2009

    With reference to the linked article about the constant predictions of the eminent demise of evolution as a scientific theory that have been made for more than the last century:

    Creationists get this idea from having claimed for the last 2000 years that Jesus is coming back any day now.

  17. #17 Henlena
    March 21, 2009

    I realize this isn’t the best place to address this, but at this link (which was cited above):

    http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

    there is a quotation from Dembski’s webmaster:

    Barry Arrington, the new webmaster at William Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent

    “We live in exciting times. The Darwinist/materialist hegemony over our culture has definitely peaked, and we are privileged to watch the initial tremors that are shaking the Darwinist house of cards. These are only the beginning of woes for St. Charles’ disciples, and I look forward to one day watching the entire rotten edifice come crashing down. I am persuaded that just as when the Soviet Union went seemingly overnight from “menacing colossus astride the globe” to “non-existent,” the final crash of the House of Darwin will happen with astonishing suddenness. You can be sure that we at UD will be there not only reporting on events, but also lending our intellectual pry bars to the effort.”

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/whats-new-at-ud/

    Now Arrington is here quoting a famous text without using quotation marks to alert the reader. Before anyone gets the wrong idea I know about this because I am a professional military historian (though i do most of my work in antiquity). Here is the original statement that Arrington quoted:

    “You ahve only to kick down the door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down.”

    And here is a link that will verify it:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=9wqkVBuiCgEC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=rotten+edifice+come+crashing+down&source=bl&ots=o73RalF0Ld&sig=Dmd8vkdEX_05tZIb0uTNSwSjaWw&hl=en&ei=UmvESZuJCcbunQejsqT6DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

    The original statemnet is from Hitler’s general order to start the invasion of Russia in 1941.

    Now it strikes me that one reason this Arrington might have this quote so glibly on the tip of his tongue so that he uses it this way could be because, in addition to being a creationsit, he might be a white supremicisit or neo-nazi (no shortage of such on the Christian right. Its strange that he seems to conflate Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union with the end of the Cold War.

    I am making this lengthy post in the hope that some more prominent science/skepticism blogger will look into this and see if any skeletons are lurking in Dembski’s closet here.

  18. #18 Stanton
    March 21, 2009

    So, wait, is Luskin placing blame on the mean “evolutionists” (sic) for having the putrefied internal organs of that long-deceased show pony that is Intelligent Design fall out while it was being paraded around?

  19. #19 Frank J
    March 21, 2009

    Almost 2 years ago I posted on Talk.Origins this request for proposals for ID/creationist research on human origins – the topic nearest and dearest to evolution-deniers:

    http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7563bdc1848942b6?hl=en

    I have also linked to it many times, but still have not received one proposal. So which one of you “Darwinists” are intercepting them? ;-)

  20. #20 JohnK
    March 21, 2009

    Imagine you’re a pro-ID research biologist

    In under one hundred words:

    [Name, Institution, Address = ~20 words]
    1. Importance & significance of research
    2. Hypothesis, Rationale, Prediction
    3. Experiment Description
    4. Materials and Methods
    5. Results
    6. Discussion
    7. Summary Conclusion

    1. Saving natural theology, morality & civilization
    2. Biosystems are intelligently designed, foundation for (1.), intelligent design
    3. Observing incomplete explanations for biosystems’ history to some “pathetic level of detail”
    4. Reading scientific literature, thinking, dreaming
    5. Biosystems’ history has not been explained to some “pathetic level of detail”
    6. Biosystems are complex and, when analyzed via uniform probability distributions, improbable, therefore, by analogy to human design, sometime, somewhere, somehow, for some purpose, by some intelligent designer or designers, some biosystem was intelligently designed.
    7. Natural theology, morality & civilization are saved

  21. #21 rimpal
    March 21, 2009

    That mythical unnamed creature “pro-ID research biologist” protests too much. If the person is a student/researcher and is working on an ID-related/inspired topic – which is why I suppose the person is pro-ID – it means that there is no pressure to own up any ID sympathies whatsoever. Because that research establishment sees the work the person is doing as scientific and not gobbledegook. But if indeed it is legitimate science the person is doing, then the person isn’t doing IDiot research, in which case the person only has IDiot sympathies, and isn’t working on anything related to IDiocy. Can’t have it both ways…

  22. #22 Martian Buddy
    March 21, 2009

    Imagine that you’re a pro-ID research biologist. And imagine you’re an idiot. But I repeat myself.

    (With apologies to Mark Twain.)

  23. #23 Eddie Janssen
    March 21, 2009

    I just read the article and when I almost finished it I wondered why I was reading it in the first place. It is just a recap of the Dover trial. Then I remembered: the threat! I completely missed it. With a little cut and paste and search I found it. On page 11. It completely failed to catch my attention.
    Maybe I am insensitive, but how sensitive can you get?

  24. #24 Larry Fafarman
    March 22, 2009

    Mike Dunford said in the original post,

    It’s difficult for me to see how there’s any kind of a threat — veiled, implicit, or explicit — in that passage.

    IMO the correct term is “idle threat.”

    . . . . given the current state of Intelligent Design “research”, it would be incredibly difficult (at best) to write a review article that focuses on ID and interprets experimental results. It’s at least as hard to review the state of ID as a “scientific field”. On the other hand, given the volume of material available, it’s incredibly easy to review the state of ID as a religious and political exercise.

    Biochemical Journal’s “Instructions to Authors” says,

    The Biochemical Journal publishes papers in English in all fields of biochemistry and cellular and molecular biology, provided that they make a sufficient contribution to knowledge in these fields. Papers may include new results obtained experimentally, descriptions of new experimental methods of biochemical importance, or new interpretations of existing results. Novel theoretical contributions will be considered and are more likely to be favourably received if the paper also contains experimental testing of the theory. All work presented should have as its aim the development of biochemical concepts rather than the mere recording of facts.

    http://www.biochemj.org/bj/bji2a.htm

    According to the above instructions, Padian’s and Matzke’s article was grossly inappropriate for publication in the Biochemical Journal. It is very hypocritical of Darwinists to applaud Biochemistry Journal’s publication of this article while they condemn Richard Sternberg’s approval of Stephen Meyer’s article for publication in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

  25. #25 386sx
    March 22, 2009

    That mythical unnamed creature “pro-ID research biologist” protests too much.

    Does anybody even know what a “pro-ID research biologist” would even do? What is it that they are supposed to do? Seems to me they would pretty much be doing evolution type stuff all the time, since the whole point of their (alleged) existence would be to say “nah evolution can’t do that one, nope, therefore… JUMP TO GIANT LEAP IN CONCLUSION”, because they sure as heck aren’t going to try and track down evidence for the “designer”. But hey what do I know…

  26. #26 Larry Fafarman
    March 22, 2009

    CORRECTION — I said, “Biochemistry Journal’s publication of this article.” That was supposed to be “Biochemical Journal.”

  27. #27 Emil
    March 23, 2009

    While I am not a scientist, I am familiar with standard publication practices in academic journals in my field. Larry, you quote above the BJ’s standards for submission of research papers. This is clearly labeled a “Review” paper. Additionally, from the page footer, it appears to have been published in a special edition of the Journal. Review papers generally are not held to the same level of scrutiny–nor are afforded the same level of respect or criticism–as are research papers. Additionally, a special edition of a journal may be intended to cover topics only tangentially related to the main focus of the journal’s regular subject matter. I’m just guessing here, but since it is labeled as “The Author’s Journal” in the footer, it seems likely that this edition contained writing by previously published authors, possibly on topics of their own choice, by invitation of the publisher.

    Stephen Meyer’s PBSW paper WAS intended to be taken as seriously as any original research paper, so to compare this paper to that one is to compare apples to oranges, as anyone familiar with academic journals from any discipline would instantly know by reading the title line and page footer.

  28. #28 vel
    March 23, 2009

    There is no better evidence that the God of creationists doesn’t exist than the lies of creationists themselves. If they really believed that their God existed and their holy books were true, they would follow the words to not lie. Even they don’t believe that their God has the capacity to do anything to them for that action.

    That supposed “letter” from a anonymous biologist would have been much better if any of the accusations had been backed up at all. Certainly if one is a “pro-ID Ph.D. research biologist” one should know that vague claims are worthless.

  29. #29 jasonmitchell
    March 23, 2009

    how can anyone rationally complain that the review article in question “Contains nothing of scientific merit. There are no interpretations of experimental results, no theories advanced, no biochemical concepts developed.”
    when the review article was about ID and its whole point is that ID contains nothing of scientific merit. There are no interpretations of experimental results, no theories advanced, no biochemical concepts developed?

  30. #30 Larry Fafarman
    March 23, 2009

    386sx said (#24) —

    Does anybody even know what a “pro-ID research biologist” would even do? What is it that they are supposed to do? Seems to me they would pretty much be doing evolution type stuff all the time

    Why do you assume that this research scientist does ID or evolution research? He might just be a research scientist who happens to be pro-ID. You folks are so busy attacking the messenger that you are missing the message, and that message is that Padian’s and Matzke’s paper does not meet the Biochemical Journal’s criteria for publication. But if it is OK for the Biochemical Journal to occasionally publish an off-topic article, then why can’t the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington also do the same? I am referring to the Stephen Meyer article that was approved by Richard Sternberg.

    Emil said (#26),

    Larry, you quote above the BJ’s standards for submission of research papers. This is clearly labeled a “Review” paper.

    The BJ “Instructions for Authors” makes no exceptions for “review” papers.

    Additionally, from the page footer, it appears to have been published in a special edition of the Journal.

    The BJ “Instructions for Authors” makes no exceptions for “special editions.”

    Padian’s and Matzke’s paper simply does not meet the BJ criteria for publication. Period.

    Stephen Meyer’s PBSW paper WAS intended to be taken as seriously as any original research paper,

    Meyer’s paper was a “review” paper, not a “research” paper — it reviewed the research of others.

    Your problem is that you can’t stand the fact that I made a very good point about a double standard concerning Meyer’s paper and the Padian-Matzke paper.

    asonmitchell said (#28) –

    how can anyone rationally complain that the review article in question “Contains nothing of scientific merit.

    The “Instructions to Authors” says, “The Biochemical Journal publishes papers in English in all fields of biochemistry and cellular and molecular biology, provided that they make a sufficient contribution to knowledge in these fields.” Does the Padian-Matzke paper make any kind of contribution — let alone a “sufficient” contribution — to knowledge in those fields? The “Instructions to Authors” says, “Papers may include new results obtained experimentally, descriptions of new experimental methods of biochemical importance, or new interpretations of existing results.” Does the Padian-Matzke article include any of those things?

    vel said (#27) –

    That supposed “letter” from a anonymous biologist would have been much better if any of the accusations had been backed up at all.

    The accusations were backed up by the contents of the Padian-Matzke paper.

    You Darwinists waste people’s time by making specious arguments.

    BTW, my blog now has a review of the Padian-Matzke article –
    http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2009/03/darwinists-still-gloating-over-dover.html

  31. #31 minimalist
    March 24, 2009

    From the Instructions to Authors page:

    The Biochemical Journal publishes papers in English in all fields of biochemistry and cellular and molecular biology, provided that they make a sufficient contribution to knowledge in these fields.

    Of course, alerting educators to abuse of biochemical data obviously doesn’t qualify, according to Larry “I read but don’t understand basic words” Fafafafafalala.

    Papers may include new results obtained experimentally, descriptions of new experimental methods of biochemical importance, or new interpretations of existing results.

    Hint: there are multiple ways to interpret the word “may”, Lar-Lar.

    And oh hey, what’s this anyway:

    The interpretation of this policy is in the hands of the Editorial Board, who judge whether each paper submitted is acceptable in terms of science and presentation.

    How dare they! The editors — who set the guidelines in the first place — aren’t qualified to judge whether an article is worthy of publication! Only Larry “Pantybunch” Fafafafafafargone knows what’s best.

    Editors make judgments like this all the time. They set the guidelines, they get to determine what Special Issues of the journal may encompass.

    But feel free to cry some more about it, Lar-Lar. It’s not like nitpicking at things where you don’t comprehend the overall picture isn’t your specialty.

  32. #32 Glen Davidson
    March 24, 2009

    All of those guidelines are simply under “General Policy” anyhow. They aren’t supposed to be limiting the journal from dealing with general issues of science, they’re intended for researchers writing up their work.

    Both Casey and Farfromsane missed that, in their zeal to spread falsehoods about those they so unreasonably dislike.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

  33. #33 Jedidiah Palosaari
    March 24, 2009

    I fail to see the negative aspect of someone realizing that supporting ID means a lack of integrity, and that it is unhealthy to one’s career. Realizing that cowardness is unhealthy for one’s career as a fireman is also beneficial. I want lifeguards to realize that aquaphobia will be detrimental to their career. I want pilots to understand that they really need to accept the reality of gravity. It’s important to realize that Truth helps, and the truth will set you free.

  34. #34 Larry Fafarman
    March 24, 2009

    minimalist driveled,

    From the Instructions to Authors page:
    The Biochemical Journal publishes papers in English in all fields of biochemistry and cellular and molecular biology, provided that they make a sufficient contribution to knowledge in these fields.
    Of course, alerting educators to abuse of biochemical data obviously doesn’t qualify, according to Larry “I read but don’t understand basic words” Fafafafafalala.

    Only a small fraction of the Padian-Matzke paper is about biochemistry, idiot.

    there are multiple ways to interpret the word “may”, Lar-Lar.

    It doesn’t mean that a paper about underwater basketweaving would be OK, doofus.

    How dare they! The editors — who set the guidelines in the first place — aren’t qualified to judge whether an article is worthy of publication!

    How dare I criticize the judgment of the BJ editors!

    And how dare you Darwinists criticize Richard Sternberg’s judgment in approving Stephen Meyer’s paper for publication in the Proceedings of the Biological Journal of Washington!

    Editors make judgments like this all the time.

    Yes — like the judgment Sternberg made when he decided to publish Meyer’s paper.

    Glen Davidson barfed,

    All of those guidelines are simply under “General Policy” anyhow.

    Since when does “general policy” mean that the “instructions to authors” are optional, you stupid fathead?

    Jedidiah Palosaari barfed,

    I fail to see the negative aspect of someone realizing that supporting ID means a lack of integrity, and that it is unhealthy to one’s career.

    The intolerance in your statement shows the negative aspect, bozo.

    Again I ask — If it is OK for the Biochemical Journal to occasionally publish an off-topic article, then why can’t the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington also do the same?

    –”I’m always kicking their butts — that’s why they don’t like me.”–
    – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

  35. #35 minimalist
    March 25, 2009

    Larry Feefiefoedumb boo-hooed:

    Only a small fraction of the Padian-Matzke paper is about biochemistry, idiot.

    And?

    Evolution is essential to biochemistry as it is in any other field of biology. The special articles highlight this, and even the regular papers use evolution as a working assumption, whether explicitly or implicitly.

    Creationism, therefore, is as relevant to biochemists as to any other biological subfield. The readers of Biochem. J. are citizens and frequently educators as well as scientists, and knowledge of the creationist tactics and history is valuable information to have when local school boards try pushing Behe’s crap.

    Again I ask — If it is OK for the Biochemical Journal to occasionally publish an off-topic article, then why can’t the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington also do the same?

    Because not only was it entirely out of the journal’s field, unlike the Padian/Matzke paper, Sternberg entirely bypassed the normal review process, slipping it past the Associate Editors of the journal (which their policy required) and violating standards of peer-review ethics and cripes, why am I even trying to reason with La-la-la-Larry, just go away, you narcissistic little know-nothing

  36. #36 Glen Davidson
    March 25, 2009

    Since when does “general policy” mean that the “instructions to authors” are optional, you stupid fathead?

    Dickhead, did anybody say that? You’re so obviously throwing shit onto your previous piles of horseshit, that you can’t even pretend to make sense.

    God, you’re a waste of good nuclei.

    Here’s a clue: Once you hit the Mohorovičić discontinuity, your reputation for idiocy should be secured for all time.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

  37. #37 Jedidiah Palosaari
    March 25, 2009

    Yes, Larry. *I’m* intolerant because I’m calling people names. How old are you? Eight?

  38. #38 Larry Fafarman
    March 25, 2009

    minimalist,

    You are really desperate. You are clutching at straws. You are a sore loser. As I said, you are just upset that I made a very good point about a double standard concerning Meyer’s paper and the Padian-Matzke paper.

    Evolution is essential to biochemistry as it is in any other field of biology. The special articles highlight this, and even the regular papers use evolution as a working assumption, whether explicitly or implicitly.

    So this connection between evolution and biochemistry justified the publication of a long article that was mostly off-topic? Again, the anonymous letter said,

    . . . the review by Padian and Matzke is a one-sided retelling of a legal trial with some simplistic historical analysis and ersatz theology thrown in.

    Since when should the opinion of a single judge with no expertise in biochemistry be considered a significant contribution to the field of biochemistry?

    Because not only was it entirely out of the journal’s field, unlike the Padian/Matzke paper

    Meyer’s paper has a lot more relevance to the Proc. of the Bio. Soc. of Wash. than the Padian-Matzke paper has to the Biochemical Journal.

    Sternberg entirely bypassed the normal review process

    From what I heard, Sternberg had the authority to approve Meyer’s paper. If Sternberg did not have such authority, then he was not solely to blame for publication of the paper without proper approval.

    violating standards of peer-review ethics

    There we go again with that peer review crap. From what I heard, the Meyer paper was properly peer-reviewed. Did the Padian-Matzke paper get impartial peer review? The only credited reviewer was Eric Rothschild, one of the plaintiffs’ lead attorneys in the trial.

    you narcissistic little know-nothing

    You are a narcissistic BIG know-nothing, dunghill.

    Glen Davidson barfed,

    Since when does “general policy” mean that the “instructions to authors” are optional, you stupid fathead?
    Dickhead, did anybody say that?

    How else can your following statement be interpreted, you stupid dunghill –

    All of those guidelines are simply under “General Policy” anyhow. They aren’t supposed to be limiting the journal from dealing with general issues of science, they’re intended for researchers writing up their work.

    For the third time — If it is OK for the Biochemical Journal to occasionally publish an off-topic article, then why can’t the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington also do the same?

  39. #39 minimalist
    March 26, 2009

    So this connection between evolution and biochemistry justified the publication of a long article that was mostly off-topic?

    Because it wasn’t off-topic in a special issue devoted to special invited articles on evolution, you amazingly thick, viscous clot of pure stupidity. I made the connection between the science of evolution, the ‘controversy’, and education quite clear, but apparently you couldn’t see it past the vast throngs of imaginary cheering people prematurely applauding your “victory”.

    Since when should the opinion of a single judge with no expertise in biochemistry be considered a significant contribution to the field of biochemistry?

    Since when should the opinion of a single anonymously-written letter, full of demonstrable falsehoods and quoted by a known ignoramus and liar (that’s Casey — I don’t want you to get too confused since those descriptors apply equally well to you), be considered superior to the judgment of the team of editors in charge of a respected scientific journal?

    Meyer’s paper has a lot more relevance to the Proc. of the Bio. Soc. of Wash. than the Padian-Matzke paper has to the Biochemical Journal.

    Whew, I’m sure glad we have you here to clear that up for us, Lar-Lar. What a well-supported statement! Tell me, are your fatuous declarations best accompanied by a ‘stamping of the feet’ or a ‘holding the breath until you turn blue’? I want to be sure I get the right image in my mind.

    From what I heard, the Meyer paper was properly peer-reviewed.

    The entire remainder of the staff of the Proceedings journal disagree, since they disowned the article. But hey, what does their expert opinion matter when compared to the voices in Lar-Lar’s head?

    And it’s funny how, every year, the journal released lists of all the peer reviewers who worked for the journals that year, divorced from any association with specific articles in order to generally preserve anonymity. Every year, that is, except the year of Meyer’s paper. How odd!

    The only credited reviewer was Eric Rothschild, one of the plaintiffs’ lead attorneys in the trial.

    Work on your reading skills, Lar-Lar. And your thinking skills. And your not-being-batcrap-crazy skills. Rothschild was not credited as a reviewer. He was consulted for comments on the manuscript to ensure that the account of the trial was accurate.

    Peer reviewers aren’t credited on individual manuscripts. Now ask yourself why you pompously set yourself up as an expert on everything when you not only don’t know the basic priciples of what you’re arguing, but also don’t know the meaning of basic words such as “comments”?

    Of course, the answer is that you’re completely ’round the bend. The comedy comes from the fact that you never grasp that, much less acknowledge your obvious deficiences in knowledge. But keep dancing for us, monkey-boy, it’s funny.

  40. #40 Glen Davidson
    March 26, 2009

    How else can your following statement be interpreted, you stupid dunghill –

    Even your name-calling is retarded and pathetic, you Holocaust-denying asshole.

    But thanks for showing how readily your moronic denial of biological science grades into moronic denial of historical evidence.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

  41. #41 Glen Davidson
    March 26, 2009

    For the third time — If it is OK for the Biochemical Journal to occasionally publish an off-topic article, then why can’t the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington also do the same?

    Initially, I wasn’t going to give an answer to this question from the constantly lying a-hole. He’s too evil, too dishonest, too nasty, even to think. Additionally, I hadn’t directly addressed his idiotic equation of a supposed “research article” by Stephen Meyer and the “review article” by Matzke and Padian.

    An intelligent and knowledgeable person would immediately see the difference. And as stupid and ignorant as Larry is, he’s not quite naive enough not to recognize the difference, so he’s almost certainly showing his gross dishonesty yet again.

    However, a few others may be naive enough not to recognize what I pointed out in my first post on this thread, that the “General Policy” which I highlighted was clearly meant for research articles, not for news regarding the relationship between science, education, and government. Larry’s lying through his teeth when he suggests that he wasn’t answered, however obliquely. That’s what he does, though.

    The liar is comparing apples and oranges, as dishonest people do. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington isn’t equipped to properly evaluate a creationist “research article” (a “literature review” in fact) purporting to deal with the Cambrian “explosion.” Indeed, no honest science journal could pass such junk off as science. Sternberg almost certainly did have Meyer’s paper “reviewed” by “peers,” that is, by people equally dishonest as Farfromsane and Meyer, people like Wells and Behe.

    That is to say, a literature review (at best) that was theologically inspired was passed off as if it were a research article, via what was at the least an unusual process orchestrated by Sternberg. It was not an honest use of the journal’s pages.

    No one ever portrayed Padian’s and Matzke’s article as if it were a research article. It’s clearly labeled “Review article.” That means something to intelligent and honest people, although neither term refers to Larry (he may have been intelligent once, but he’s clearly frittered away any smarts he had on woo and BS).

    There are differences between journals as well. The Meyer article was repudiated with these words: “the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.” Of course the tard Larry wouldn’t deal with anything like that honestly, he just derives lies from other liars, and spews them out along with hatred and venom of anyone better than he is (his enemy list is thus extremely long).

    Perhaps most important of all, Biochemical Journal is clearly set up to be able to properly evaluate Matzke’s and Padian’s article, as the latter isn’t exactly rocket science (if apparently solid scholarship). They got Eric Rothschild to comment on it. Journals specialize so that they will have the expertise to evaluate papers coming in. That’s why publishing a supposed research article like Meyer’s in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington wouldn’t make sense based on the stated subject, let alone due to the moronic “poof” ideas which clearly inspired it.

    If Biochemical Journal had published a research article that went well outside of their area of expertise, then idiot-boy Larry might have made an intelligent point. Likewise with paid liar Casey Luskin. This was all implied in my earlier post, and the fact that idiot-boy never addressed any of these matters shows how valuable his input on these affairs is.

    Larry’s an ignorant fool, but it’s clear that even he ought to have the knowledge and intelligence to recognize at least some of this, if he were not just serving as a conduit for others’ idiocy.

    Well, now I’ve answered him in a form that even a tard like himself should understand, though I did not do so for the sake of his perverse mind. It was for those who may be naive enough not to know these things, but who stay out of what they don’t understand, quite unlike morons such as Luskin and Farfromsane.

    And now I’ve said all that I should say. If tard-boy Larry wants to demonstrate more of his pathetic incompetence–even at name-calling–let him do so. He’s been thoroughly exposed for the dishonest dolt that he is, and any drivel he adds will be seen as such, save by the permanently ignorant and/or stupid.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

  42. #42 Larry Fafarman
    March 28, 2009

    minimalist and Davidson, you are both just lousy trolls talking through your hats. The Biochemical Journal’s “Instructions for Authors” says nothing about “special editions” and does not distinguish between “research” articles and “review” articles. There is no evidence of a BJ special edition devoted to articles about evolution. Eric Rothschild’s function was the same as a peer reviewer. The Meyer article would not have been published if Sternberg did not have the authority to approve it. You are both just sore losers. I could go on, but I would just be wasting time by feeding you lousy trolls.

    I HAVE WON THE ARGUMENT. I NOW DECLARE VICTORY.

  43. #43 minimalist
    March 28, 2009

    The Meyer article would not have been published if Sternberg did not have the authority to approve it.

    “Your honor, I plead not guilty, because obviously what I did was legal. Would I have been able to rob the bank, did I not have the authority to do so? I submit not.”

    Also, Lar-Lar, you just spiked your own argument. The entire editorial staff of the Biochemical Journal approved and published that article (in a special issue with four other evolution-themed reviews, which they have specifically singled out for emphasis), therefore they could not have possibly done anything wrong.

    I HAVE WON THE ARGUMENT. I NOW DECLARE VICTORY.

    Psst, Lar-Lar, you’re supposed to aim at the other team’s goal.

  44. #44 Larry Fafarman
    March 28, 2009

    Your honor, I plead not guilty, because obviously what I did was legal.

    Did Sternberg have the authority to approve Meyer’s article, or not? Yes or no.

    The entire editorial staff of the Biochemical Journal approved and published that article

    You have provided no proof or evidence that the article was approved by the entire editorial staff.

    (in a special issue with four other evolution-themed reviews, which they have specifically singled out for emphasis)

    You have provided no proof or evidence that there was such a special issue.

    You are just a big bag of hot air who is cluttering up this blog with garbage. You are just a lousy troll.

    I, on the other hand, have shown that the article was not consistent with the Biochemical Journal’s “Instructions for Authors.”

  45. #45 W. Kevin Vicklund
    March 29, 2009

    Did Sternberg have the authority to approve Meyer’s article, or not? Yes or no.

    No. His authority to unilaterally approve papers was, at most, restricted to those papers that meet the normal subject matter criteria. The statement from BSW cited Sternberg exceeding this authority as one of the reasons for retracting the paper.

    You have provided no proof or evidence that the article was approved by the entire editorial staff.

    Not only does the Journal’s home page prominently advertise the article, the home page of Portland Press, the parent company of the Journal, is prominently displaying the following press release:

    DECEMBER 2008
    Biochemical Journal celebrates Darwin

    The Biochemical Journal publishes the first review in an exciting series of reviews to mark the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin in 2009.
    Take a look at Darwin, Dover, “Intelligent Design” and textbooks by Kevin Padian and Nicholas Matzke, which deals with the evolution-versus-creationism controversy in American jurisprudence. Other reviews in the series will cover the evolution of protein phosphatases in plants and animals by Greg Moorhead and colleagues, insulin/IGF-like signalling and aging by Susan Broughton and Linda Partridge, the evolution of the protein world by Gustavo Caetano-Anolles and colleagues, and superfamilies, divergence and domains in protein evolution by Cyrus Chothia and Julian Gough

    Visit http://www.BiochemJ.org to find out more.

    It is possible that minimalist is exaggerating, but it is quite clear that the article is not being snuck in the back door. Short of Matzke drum marshalling a marching band into an editorial board meeting, I’m not sure how much more attention could be drawn to the article.

    You have provided no proof or evidence that there was such a special issue.

    I see that once again, Larry hasn’t bothered to read the very sites he cites. Try reading the home page of the Biochemical Journal’s website. I know you have trouble reading anything smaller than 18 point font, so I’ll reproduce the relevant section, titled Spotlight, for you here:

    To order your own unique collection of these five reviews at a special rate of £20 for Biochemical Society members and £25 for non members click here

    Darwin, Dover, “Intelligent Design” and textbooks
    by Kevin Padian and Nicholas Matzke examines the ongoing evolution-versus-creationism controversy in American jurisprudence. This review is now freely available to all users!

    Genomic and structural aspects of protein evolution
    by Cyrus Chothia and Julian Gough discusses the various roles played by protein domain duplication, domain combination and divergence, three key “drivers” in the evolution of new proteins and protein superfamilies.

    Insulin/IGF-like signalling, the central nervous system and aging
    by Susan Broughton and Linda Partridge discusses the current knowledge about the role of the central nervous system in IIS [insulin/IGF (insulin-like growth factor)-like signalling]-related extension of lifespan in model organisms.

    The origin, evolution and structure of the protein world
    by Gustavo Caetano-Anollés and colleagues examines the structure of the contemporary protein world, and discusses how evolutionary genomics and structural bioinformatics have helped in delineating the origin and history of modern proteins.

    Evolution of protein phosphatases in plants and animals
    by Greg Moorhead, Veerle De Wever, George Templeton and David Kerk discusses comprehensively the evolution of the three major families of protein phosphatases, highlighting examples of convergent evolution and phosphatases that are unique to plants.

    I, on the other hand, have shown that the article was not consistent with the Biochemical Journal’s “Instructions for Authors.”

    It’s a review. No review is consistent with the first paragraph of the “General Policies” section of the “Instructions for Authors” That is why the submission requirements for reviews are so radically different from regular papers. To submit a review, you either have to be invited to write one, or ask permission ahead of time. The reason for this is because reviews are’t consistent with the policy and therefore need to be individually considered to determine whether they should be included.

  46. #46 Larry Fafarman
    March 29, 2009

    Kevin Vicklund said,

    His authority to unilaterally approve papers was, at most, restricted to those papers that meet the normal subject matter criteria.

    Was such a rule in effect when Sternberg approved Meyer’s paper, or are you just making things up again? If such a rule was in effect and Sternberg violated the rule, then the Proceedings staff was to blame for not having safeguards to prevent Sternberg from violating the rule.

    It is possible that minimalist is exaggerating, but it is quite clear that the article is not being snuck in the back door.

    Minimalist claimed that the “entire” editorial staff approved the article but he provided no proof or evidence of that. I don’t know what in the hell you lousy trolls think you are doing, but everything I say that is not an opinion is backed up by proof or evidence.

    I see that once again, Larry hasn’t bothered to read the very sites he cites.

    You lousy, disgusting, despicable troll, let’s get something straight here, once and for all: it is not my job to find evidence to support the opposition — it is hard enough for me to find evidence to support MY OWN arguments. And you should be dumping on minimalist, not me — he is the one who failed to present evidence to support his arguments.

    To order your own unique collection of these five reviews at a special rate of £20 for Biochemical Society members and £25 for non members click here
    Darwin, Dover, “Intelligent Design” and textbooks
    by Kevin Padian and Nicholas Matzke examines the ongoing evolution-versus-creationism controversy in American jurisprudence. This review is now freely available to all users!
    Genomic and structural aspects of protein evolution
    by Cyrus Chothia and Julian Gough discusses the various roles played by protein domain duplication, domain combination and divergence, three key “drivers” in the evolution of new proteins and protein superfamilies.
    Insulin/IGF-like signalling, the central nervous system and aging
    by Susan Broughton and Linda Partridge discusses the current knowledge about the role of the central nervous system in IIS [insulin/IGF (insulin-like growth factor)-like signalling]-related extension of lifespan in model organisms.
    The origin, evolution and structure of the protein world
    by Gustavo Caetano-Anollés and colleagues examines the structure of the contemporary protein world, and discusses how evolutionary genomics and structural bioinformatics have helped in delineating the origin and history of modern proteins.
    Evolution of protein phosphatases in plants and animals
    by Greg Moorhead, Veerle De Wever, George Templeton and David Kerk discusses comprehensively the evolution of the three major families of protein phosphatases, highlighting examples of convergent evolution and phosphatases that are unique to plants.

    It’s a review. No review is consistent with the first paragraph of the “General Policies” section of the “Instructions for Authors” That is why the submission requirements for reviews are so radically different from regular papers.

    You are making stuff up again — as I said, the “Instructions for Authors” says nothing about a distinction between “review” articles and “research” or “regular” articles. The other four articles are “research” articles in biochemstry and follow the “Instructions for Authors.” The Padian-Matzke paper has very little biochemistry and does not follow the “Instructions for Authors” — the paper mostly discusses legal, political, theological, and social issues. Thank you for helping to make my case for me.

    To submit a review, you either have to be invited to write one, or ask permission ahead of time.

    More making stuff up — you have provided no evidence of such a policy, and no evidence would be valid because that policy is not stated in the “Instructions for Authors” where everyone could see it.

    Also, if evolution is “central” to biology, then why should there be a special issue for evolution — all issues of the journal should be chock full of articles concerning evolution.

    Except for showing that there was a special issue for evolution and giving a list of the articles in that issue, you have contributed nothing to this discussion.

  47. #47 W. Kevin Vicklund
    March 29, 2009

    Was such a rule in effect when Sternberg approved Meyer’s paper, or are you just making things up again? If such a rule was in effect and Sternberg violated the rule, then the Proceedings staff was to blame for not having safeguards to prevent Sternberg from violating the rule.

    Yes, it was in effect. By your argument, the jails should be full of victims of crime while the perpetrators walk free. I reject that on a moral and ethical basis. You are a sick individual.

    You lousy, disgusting, despicable troll, let’s get something straight here, once and for all: it is not my job to find evidence to support the opposition — it is hard enough for me to find evidence to support MY OWN arguments. And you should be dumping on minimalist, not me — he is the one who failed to present evidence to support his arguments.

    When you cite a source, it is your reponsibility to make sure that the source as a whole supports your argument, not just the short phrase that you c&p. By citing a source, a person is implicitly claiming that the source supports his conclusions and that the data are correct. It is your responsibility to make sure you’re not quotemining. If you cite something and the source contradicts you, as has happened on countless occasions, it’s your fault for abdicating your responsibility. It is much worse to cite a source and misrepresent it than it is to make a claim without a source.

    You are making stuff up again — as I said, the “Instructions for Authors” says nothing about a distinction between “review” articles and “research” or “regular” articles. The other four articles are “research” articles in biochemstry and follow the “Instructions for Authors.” The Padian-Matzke paper has very little biochemistry and does not follow the “Instructions for Authors” — the paper mostly discusses legal, political, theological, and social issues. Thank you for helping to make my case for me.

    Humpty Dumpty warning!

    When Larry starts losing an argument, he starts resorting to sophistry, in his case using non-standard definitions of words, usually placing scare quotes around the words for which he wishes to change the meaning. The four articles may or may not be “research” articles as Larry wants to define them, but it is quite clear that they are in fact review articles. Unless you want to claim that the Journal is lying when it says that they are review articles, Larry? Are all the authors lying in their abstracts when they claim that the papers are review articles? Is the brief description of the article on the front page wrong? Are the abstracts misrepresenting the content of the papers?

    let’s break down the partial paragraph that Larry quoted, since it seems to be the only part of the Instructions to Authors that Larry has read. Does a review meet any of these supposed requirements?

    The Biochemical Journal publishes papers in English in all fields of biochemistry and cellular and molecular biology, provided that they make a sufficient contribution to knowledge in these fields.

    How can a review make a sufficient contribution to knowledge? All it does is act as an aggregator of current knowledge.

    Papers may include new results obtained experimentally, descriptions of new experimental methods of biochemical importance, or new interpretations of existing results.

    Nope, none of those are characteristics of a review (no, Larry, not even the last item)

    Novel theoretical contributions will be considered and are more likely to be favourably received if the paper also contains experimental testing of the theory.

    Again, not a characteristic of a review.

    All work presented should have as its aim the development of biochemical concepts rather than the mere recording of facts.

    And we’ve got a shutout.

    More making stuff up — you have provided no evidence of such a policy, and no evidence would be valid because that policy is not stated in the “Instructions for Authors” where everyone could see it.

    But it is stated in the “Instructions to Authors” right where everyone can see it. You know, if you actually read the documents you cite, you wouldn’t constantly be making these false assertions that make you look like a moron when someone points out that the document does contain what you assert it doesn’t contain. The section in question:

    Procedure for submission

    Types of paper

    1. Research Papers are the normal form of publication, and authors are strongly encouraged to keep the length to between six and eight printed pages. Authors should note that no paper, whatever its scientific merits, will be accepted if it exceeds the minimum length required for precision in describing the experiments and clarity in interpreting them. A concise well-written paper tends to be published more quickly. To allow the reviewers to assess possible overlap with previous work, all papers must be accompanied by duplicate copies of the author’s relevant published work, including that on the WWW, and of all related papers that are in press or under editorial consideration in this or other journals. Failure to do so may seriously delay evaluation of the paper.

    2. Accelerated Publications (APs) are short papers (normally no more than four printed pages) bringing particularly novel and significant findings to the attention of the research community. It is intended that a decision on acceptance or rejection will be made within 10 working days of receipt, and publication of accepted APs in an issue will follow within 2 months. APs receive full but accelerated reviewing. The criteria of ‘novelty and significance’ are strictly enforced, and papers may be rejected solely on the grounds of lack of novelty and significance. APs are not a path to accelerated publication of sound but non-urgent material. Papers reporting nucleotide sequences only are not acceptable as APs.

    APs should be arranged in the usual style for a Biochemical Journal paper (synopsis, introduction, methods, results and discussion, with sufficient experimental detail to permit repetition of the work) and should not normally be longer than four printed pages of the journal [about 4000 words (24000 characters) of uninterrupted text, including references, but this number should be decreased to allow for the space taken up by Figures and Tables]. Papers submitted as APs that clearly exceed this length will be treated as Research Papers and the authors informed. The online submission procedures outlined above for Research Papers should be followed. The covering letter must contain a brief statement of why it is believed that the paper merits accelerated treatment.

    Colour figures in Accelerated Publications are published free of charge, provided, in the opinion of the Editorial Board, they are necessary to illustrate a scientific point.

    3. Reviews will usually be solicited, although unsolicited reviews will be considered for publication. Prospective authors should first consult the Vice Chair, Reviews, via the London or La Jolla editorial office, and should enclose a short (one page) summary of the area they propose to cover. As well as full-length state of the art reviews, shorter more focused reviews in emerging areas will also be considered.

    When are you going to bother reading your sources, Larry?

    Also, if evolution is “central” to biology, then why should there be a special issue for evolution — all issues of the journal should be chock full of articles concerning evolution.

    And they are. But most of those articles utilize evolutionary theory implicitly. But that is irrelevant. The special series doesn’t just utilize evolutionary theory, it documents how biochemists tracked the evolution of biochemicals. Also, keep in mind that these are review articles, not research articles, so they are demonstrating that the various biochemical journals are, in fact, “chock full of articles concerning evolution.”

  48. #48 W. Kevin Vicklund
    March 29, 2009

    Larry, let me remind you of some sage advice you were given by Mike Dunford a year and a half ago:

    Next time, read the [sources] before you cite them. If you do not, you risk having people think that you are a moron, when you in fact actually are.

  49. #49 Larry Fafarman
    March 29, 2009

    Was such a rule in effect when Sternberg approved Meyer’s paper, or are you just making things up again?
    Yes, it was in effect.

    You are just making things up again — you have provided no evidence that the rule was in effect at the time, or even that there ever was such a rule. And it doesn’t matter anyway because there should have been safeguards to prevent Sternberg from breaking the rule.

    When you cite a source, it is your reponsibility to make sure that the source as a whole supports your argument, not just the short phrase that you c&p.

    The source I cited, the “Instructions for Authors,” does “as a whole” support my arguments. It is not my job to go on a big search elsewhere to try to find contradictions of my arguments. And even if such contradictions could be found (you have not found any), those contradictions would be invalid because the “Instructions for Authors” page is supposed to contain all the information that prospective authors need to know.

    That reminds me of something that happened to me in grad school in mechanical engineering. I was following the general degree requirements in the engineering catalog. I didn’t know that the mechanical engineering department — alone among the engineering departments — required six units of a directed research course. That special ME requirement was in another place in the catalog. I happened to sign up for four units of the course (I didn’t know that any units were required), and my faculty advisor approved my program without informing me that six units were required. I complained to the department heads about his failure to inform me of the six unit requirement. He then became very angry, saying that my complaining to the department heads jeopardized his chances of getting a raise, so apparently they were very unhappy about his carelessness. But you of course blame me for not having a crystal ball that would have informed me of the six unit requirement.

    Procedure for submission

    Types of paper

    1. Research Papers

    are the normal form of publication,

    - – - – - -
    3. Reviews will usually be solicited, although unsolicited reviews will be considered for publication. (emphasis added)

    You lousy, despicable, disgusting troll, I have been asking for a long time about how the Biochemical Journal defines or distinguishes “research papers” and “review papers,” and you have FINALLY provided an answer (sort of)! As I said, it is not my job to search for information supporting YOUR arguments — even if that information is in a source that I cite, you stupid idiot. You just like to play keep-away and hide-and-seek.

    Anyway, there is NO statement that “reviews” do not have to follow the “general policy” — which I previously described — at the top of the “Instructions for Authors.”

    Minimalist said without evidence that the Padian-Matzke paper was “invited,” but the “Instructions for Authors” says that “reviews will usually be solicited, although unsolicited reviews will be considered for publication.”

    Also, there is a listing for “reviews” but none for “research papers” in the right-hand sidebar of the Biochemical Journal homepage —

    http://www.biochemj.org/bj/default.htm

    What in the hell happened to the “research papers”?

    Also, Biochemical Journal calls those five papers in the special evolution edition “review papers,” even though they all look like “research papers.” I presume that a “review paper” is supposed to be a review of research that others have done — but what research does the Padian-Matzke article review?

    (quoting) Next time, read the [sources] before you cite them. If you do not, you risk having people think that you are a moron, when you in fact actually are.

    You obviously didn’t read my response to Mike Dunceford’s above insult –

    For someone who demands civility of visiting commenters, you obviously don’t practice what you preach.

    I did not read the whole brief because I was only checking for the argument about the SAT II AP biology test. The “search PDF” feature usually works but did not work in this case.

    I have since learned to check the operation of the PDF search feature when I don’t find something.