In the comments on a post below, Dan Ray suggested that perhaps Stephen Meyer's article on ID in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington had gotten into that journal by "questionable means". He was apparently right. The editor at the time, Richard Sternberg, apparently violated the journal's procedures for reviewing manuscripts by not showing it to any of the journal's associate editors. The PBSW procedures for contribution state:
"Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees."
But according to a statement released today by the board of the BSW, this was not followed:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.
The ID crowd has been absolutely frantic to get something into a peer-reviewed journal, even if it's only a review. It turns out that when they get one, it was only because a friendly editor violated the standards of the journal to sneak it in. More importantly, of course, is the fact that the article is rife with errors of both fact and logic, as Gish, Elsberry and Matzke point out in great detail in their critique of the article on Panda's Thumb.
Postscript: Here's one that could crash the irony meter for you. In a "media backgrounder" put out for the press, the Discovery Institute throws out this little gem:
Why do critics of intelligent design continue to equate it with creationism?The charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is merely a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Here's why this is so funny. Wes, Gish and Nick published a long and very detailed critique "addressing the merits of the case" (with an even more detailed and comprehensive one on the way), and the ONLY thing that they have focused on is the fact that the article refers to them as creationists. That has set off all kinds of howling about how unfair it is to call them creationists, yet they haven't even mentioned all of the substantive arguments given. Who exactly is using a "rhetorical strategy" here?
- Log in to post comments
Of course, now ID proponents will jump right back with charges that there is no level playing field, that buffalo Darwinists have closed ranks again, etc., etc. Sadly, they'll also trumpet the claim that peer review (oh, exalted Peer Review!) is politically manipulable. The real lack of substantive research will be lost on the masses.
"The real lack of substantive research will be lost on the masses."
Welcome back to Day One. The "masses" (I prefer, "the Horde") don't give a damn about substantive research or peer review. This controversy has been and always will be all about god, not the integrity of scientific inquiry. They don't care who's selling the bullshit, as long as it's the bullshit they want to buy.
E
It's fucking bizarre. I keep seeing these ominous parallels between current national political character assassination, campaigning, and IDC tricks.
Not only are the parallels ominous, but the sheer
gullibility of the American public to swallow this crap astounds me.
(disclaimer: I'm in Canada looking in from the outside)
DonM
Don, it astounds us too. But as Mencken said, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people, nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.
They've now published a response over at Discovery HQ. It's pretty much what you'd expect, some 'We have a paper published in the peer-reviewed literature so that makes us scientific', nonsense.
NCSE Flip-flops As Controversy Over Peer-Reviewed Article Continues
Darwinists Like Peer-Review Except When They Don't
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 8, 2004
SEATTLE, SEPT. 8 - For the past few years the Darwinian lobbyists at the National Center for Science Education (NSCE) have falsely complained that scientists who support the theory of intelligent design don't publish peer-reviewed articles and don't make their case at scientific conferences.
"Now an article has appeared in a biology journal that even the NCSE can't find a way to spin out of existence," responds Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). "So what does it do? Claim the article shouldn't have been published despite the fact it was approved by peer-review. Apparently politicians aren't the only ones who do flip-flops."
You can read the rest at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2193
Ed --
Thanks for the follow-up information. I'm glad to see PBSW moved so quickly, and candidly disclosed the circumstances that allowed this to occur. Hat tip once again to PT. As I mentioned in earlier comments, it was a comment there that led me to post here. I figured you'd get to the bottom of it... .
I think you mean *Gishlick*, not *Gish.* Freudian slip?
I think you mean *Gishlick*, not *Gish.* Freudian slip?
No, I'm just used to calling Alan Gishlick by his nickname, which is "Gish". That's who we always refer to him, so that's how I usually write it.