It seems the Worldnutdaily has taken notice of my side project blog, The Panda's Thumb. In an article entitled Anti-evolution paper met with 'hysteria, name-calling', the most consistently wrong news source this side of Pravda has a link to us. A little background is probably necessary. Steven Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, an ID think tank, recently published an article in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington that was essentially a review of ID arguments and a rehashing of Behe, Dembski and Wells. There was no actual research reported, nor was there a model offered from which testable hypotheses might be derived. Three of my colleagues, Dr. Alan Gishlick, Dr. Wesley Elsberry, and Nick Matzke, have written a long and detailed response to Meyer's article on the Panda's Thumb, which is itself but a preliminary response to the paper. A more detailed examination of the claims therein will be published in the next few months. That response has, predictably, prompted much whining and exaggeration from Meyer and the IDers, of which the Worldnutdaily's silly little article is the most obvious.
The loaded language is quite amusing, especially given that anyone can look at the response for themselves and see that it's entirely unwarranted. "Hysteria and name-calling", is how they claim it was greeted, also noting that PT and the NCSE responded with "shock and outrage" that an ID paper would be published in a peer-reviewed journal. All of that is simply nonsense. There is no hysteria or name-calling in the response by Gish, Elsberry and Matzke, nor is there "shock and outrage". There is simply a detailed examination of the claims in Meyer's paper. Apparently Meyer thinks that any disagreement or criticism whatsoever is hysterical name-calling. How ridiculous. I urge you to read it for yourself and judge for yourself which side is being hysterical and which side is calmly making real arguments backed up by evidence.
- Log in to post comments
I go to Panda's Thumb every once in a while--it's an interesting blog. I read the post there that you are referring to, and have to agree with you. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that the Proceedings published the article, since it doesn't sound like it has much in the way of science in it.
BTW, I'm pleased that people have seem to be referring to WND more and more as WorldNutDaily. I started referring to it as that several years ago on internet message boards, after having read several of their idiotic screeds against gay people.
Ed --
Comparing WorldNutDaily to Pravda is a bit unfair, I think...to Pravda. Now, if you compared WND to, say, TechCentral Station, I think that comparison would be a bit more apt. I've been following the Thumb on this, and as I recall, there is some question as to how the Meyer piece got published in PBSW in the first place. I seem to recall reading in comments that PBSW was going to publish a response and an explanation (or a retraction?) in an upcoming issue. I'm no scientist or biologist, but even I could see that Meyer's piece wasn't about science or biology. I suspect it slipped into PBSW by questionable means, and I look forward to the rest of the story.
I've been following the Thumb on this, and as I recall, there is some question as to how the Meyer piece got published in PBSW in the first place. I seem to recall reading in comments that PBSW was going to publish a response and an explanation (or a retraction?) in an upcoming issue. I'm no scientist or biologist, but even I could see that Meyer's piece wasn't about science or biology. I suspect it slipped into PBSW by questionable means, and I look forward to the rest of the story.
I don't think I'd call it questionable means. One of the editors of the journal in which it is published is an ID advocate, Richard Sternberg. What I find more amusing is that in the article in The Scientist, he frantically denies that he is a creationist, yet he sits on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College. Baraminology is an entirely invented field of study peculiar only to creationists; the sole purpose of it is to determine the makeup of the "created kinds" found in biblical text.
As far as the appearance in a peer-reviewed journal goes, it was inevitable that they would slip one in. There are over 3000 journals in the sciences, most published by obscure local groups (including this particular one). The only relevant question is whether the material contained in the article is supported by the science and makes a case for its conclusion, and in this case it does not. Meyer's article was nothing more than a rehash of the same ID arguments that have been floating around for years, impervious to critique. It contained no actual research and no model from which one might derive hypotheses for testing to spur such research. It is still a purely negative argument - not evolution, therefore God. One could as easily make the same argument in any field of science:
"Meteorology cannot explain every detail about hurricanes (heck, they were off by 100 miles on Charley!), but they are too blinded by their atheistic commitment to naturalism to even consider the obvious truth that hurricanes are not a product of random chance but of the intelligent and willful act of a designer. There are lots of intelligent design meteorologists out there, but they can't openly state their views because they will be victims of a witch hunt by the atheistic meteorological orthodoxy, who don't want to give up their priveleged place in society."
See how easy that was?
Ed, that last bit is a beautiful summation of how ridiculous ID arguments are. I busted a gut laughing.
Sadly we are likely to see more peer-reviews publications publishing nonsense as time goes by. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine published an article that purported to show that infertile women who were prayed for became pregnant twice as often as those who were not prayed for. This article that was apparently fraudulent, and later retracted by the journal, although the damage had been done. We will see more and more editorial review boards letting non-sense slip through.
Ed, is that a typo in your 2nd paragraph of the post? Did you mean "Gishlick" and not "Gish"?
"Questionable means" wasn't a good choice of words. I went back and found the comment on PT. Here's the link: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html#c7199 and here's the text of the comment:
Hearing that an ID paper was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington I informed a colleague that routinely publishes there of the apparent change in editorial policy. Upon hearing this, she immediately contacted several individuals and found that the paper was not sent to any of the associate editors as is the usual procedure. Also, the editor in question is no longer in charge. Also, there will be an explanation and a condemnation of the article being published in the next issue.
Obviously, it is hearsay and I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information. But if it is accurate, it suggests that perhaps the ID/creationists managed to slip one in. I suspect there will be follow up on the Thumb if/when the "explanation and a condemnation" are published, and I'm looking forward to seeing what develops.
Ed, is that a typo in your 2nd paragraph of the post? Did you mean "Gishlick" and not "Gish"?
It was kind of a typo. We all call him "Gish" (I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to him as Alan), so I just typed that instead of his full last name. It does lead to some amusing confusion with Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research once in a while, so we sometimes refer to the Good Gish and the Bad Gish (which is not Alan Gishlick with liquor in him).
Yes, Ed, that's Bryan College (Motto: We're here to educate. Not indoctrinate.) named after William Jennings Bryan who was the prosecutor at the Scope's Monkey Trial, right here in lovely Dayton, TN, the home of our Rhea County Commissioners who received your Idiot of the Month award in April.
Yessiree, Ed, it's nice that our community is getting the recognition it so well deserves.
Bryan was not "the prosecutor" at the Scopes trial, though he was part of the prosecution team.
Scopes Trial FRA
>Meteorology cannot explain every detail about hurricanes
FWIW, this reminded me of
http://www.phoenixpages.com/cilwa/Humor/Gripes/UnnaturalActs.htm
Wesley, you said "Bryan was not "the prosecutor" at the Scopes trial..."
This is correct. Since he was not from Tennessee, he couldn't technically be "the prosecutor."
The trial took a strange turn, when Bryan took the stand in defence of the Biblical account of creation.
"I care more about the Rock of Ages, than the age of rocks." he reportedly said.
A recreation of the trial is held annually in July in the same courthouse where the original trial was held. See Events
Didn't the defendant lose, and was fined money??
The outcome of the Scopes trial was that John Scopes was convicted. His conviction was overturned on a technicality, which ended the case. It was quite a disappointment, actually. The ACLU and Clarence Darrow were hoping to take the case to the Supreme Court to establish a precedent, but with the appeals court overturning it on a technicality, they had no standing to appeal any further and the case ended.
I like the part where it suggest we 'hang up our lab coats, we had a good run and almost had people believing we were monkey's uncles'
I feel kinda bad because I never actually had an official Darwinism lab coat to hang up...