Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
77 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 76 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 207 (142705)
09-16-2004 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
09-14-2004 11:44 AM


Re: Wrong?
quote:
PaulK:
I'm saying that the ID movement, as a movement, does not accept common descent. All Behe's testimony tells us is that one member of the movement personally accepts common descent and has not been forced out as a result.

Can you support your assrtion? Dr. Behe isn't the only IDist that accepts common descent.

quote:
Paul:
The more important issue is Steve Jones' testimony, since he states that he was asked to resign from the movement by one of the few people who could legitimately claim to speak for the ID movenent.

Do you know this Steve Jones personally? Were you there when he was asked to resign? Do you believe everything a disgruntled person tells you? Do you know all of the details behind his resignation or only what Steve posted?


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2004 11:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2004 11:22 AM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 207 (142708)
09-16-2004 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
09-14-2004 12:11 PM


Re: ID is not Creation
Conflating ID with Creationism is a transparent ruse. You are only fooling yourself and your gullible ilk. By your logic theistic evolutionists are also Creationists. I wonder what Ken Miller would say to you about that.

I never saud that ID didn't have similarities with Creation. Both have similarities with the theory of evolution. That does NOT make them all one in the same. It doesn't matter if Creationists support ID. That does not make ID = Creation. If I want to learn about ID I would not go to the ICR or AIG. Is that where you learn about the theory of evolution?

I put my arguments down in the proposed topics thread labeled Intelligent Design is not Creation[ism]. I wonder why the moderators won't post it?

Copy of entire contents of proposed topic deleted. Moderators have already cautioned this thread to remain on topic. Members who feel moderators are not responding fast enough to proposed topic are free to volunteer for a moderator role. --Admin

ID is Creationism only in the minds of the ill-informed or the blatant misrepresenters. Which one are you Percy?

This message has been edited by Admin, 09-16-2004 10:58 AM


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 12:11 PM Percy has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Coragyps, posted 09-16-2004 11:36 AM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 207 (142710)
09-16-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by PaulK
09-16-2004 11:22 AM


Re: Wrong?
quote:
PaulK:
Which other IDist's support Common Descent ?

Dean Kenyon and Scott Minnich are two such IDists. However, I only have to present one, Behe, to shoot down your case.

quote:
PaulK:
I am familiar with Steve Jones' long support of the ID movement (he is still a committed opponent of evolution. I see no reason why he should misrepresent the facts behind his resignation.

That isn't evidence. If you don't have any evidence just say so.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2004 11:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2004 11:38 AM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 207 (142711)
09-16-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by derwood
09-14-2004 4:45 PM


quote:
SLPx:
It was interesting to see how he made a deal out of being labeled a creationist. He IS one, after all.

He is? Any evidence for that assertion?

quote:
SLPx:
That in and of itself was not the issue, the issue, as has been raised, is that he used his position to get a creationist paper published.

That is not true. It is not a creationist paper. Meyer is an IDist and yes there is a difference. The paper was reviewed by three other people- biologists. Is Nick Matzke a biologist?

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-16-2004 10:33 AM


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by derwood, posted 09-14-2004 4:45 PM derwood has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2004 1:36 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 207 (143057)
09-18-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by PaulK
09-16-2004 11:49 AM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
Is talk design a peer-reviewed journal? Is N.J. Matzke a biologist?

What detail is offered on how the bac flag arose?

Biology in the Subjunctive Mood:A Response to Nicholas Matzke

The double-standards are obvious. Reality shows they exist.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2004 11:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2004 12:56 PM ID man has taken no action
 Message 124 by Nic Tamzek, posted 09-25-2004 11:22 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 207 (143059)
09-18-2004 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
09-16-2004 11:50 AM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
quote:
Percy:
The underlying assumption of ID is the insufficiency of natural causes to account for biological structures and processes.

That is false. The underlying assertion is that it takes an intelligent agency to account for IC and CSI.

But please if you have ANY evidence that nature acting alone can bring about the biological structures with alleged IC then present it. Otherwise all you have is a belief system. Belief systems are not science.

quote:
Percy:
The ID terms complexity, contingency, specified, and specified complexity are all just invented, pulled out of thin air.

And that is pure assertion. Is assertion the best you have?

quote:
Percy:
And ID simply assumes an agent that has never been observed performing an action that has also never been observed, let alone defined.

There is the double-standard again. When has nature acting alone been observed to bring life from non-life? Why does an agent have to be defined before we can infer that an object is a product of design? Since when did the actual observance of an event make it necessary to infer something about that event?


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 09-16-2004 11:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2004 11:30 AM ID man has replied
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 09-18-2004 3:26 PM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 207 (143062)
09-18-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Silent H
09-16-2004 1:36 PM


quote:
holmes:
Maybe, maybe not. However we do have evidence that YOU are a creationist.

I am sure that you think you do.

quote:
holmes:
You stated that a person who does NOT believe in common descent would be in the creationist camp.

I don't believe that is what I said. IDists don't have to believe in common descent. IDists CAN believe in common descent, Creationists don't. That is the difference. IDists follow the evidence. IF that evidence leads us to the conclusions of Creationists- that there were many different types of organisms that first populated the Earth- so be it.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 09-16-2004 1:36 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Silent H, posted 09-18-2004 1:23 PM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 207 (143064)
09-18-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by crashfrog
09-18-2004 11:30 AM


The underlying assumption of ID is the insufficiency of natural causes to account for biological structures and processes.

That is false. The underlying assertion is that it takes an intelligent agency to account for IC and CSI.

quote:
crashfrog:
That's why I love these design guys. You tell them what they believe, and they tell you "that's false" and tell you what they think they believe, which, as it turns out, was exactly what you said in the first place.

If you think that is what took place, not only are you wrong, but there are other words I won't use that describe you very well.

When has nature acting alone been observed to bring life from non-life?

quote:
crashfrog:
So, what you're saying is, the Fallacy of the False Dilemma is the best support you have for your argument?

Wrong again. I was merely asking for the positive evidence for materialistic naturalism. I see you can't provide any.

Since when did the actual observance of an event make it necessary to infer something about that event?

quote:
crashfrog:
Not the event; the mechanism.

Design is a mechanism. Also we have the following:

ID and Mechanisms

and

A Brief word on Mechanisms

quote:
crashfrog:
Darwin couldn't propose natural selection as a mechanism of evolution until he had seen selection in action.

Actually Darwin stole the idea of NS. However we still haven't observed NS create anything from scratch.

quote:
crashfrog:
Similarly, intelligence can't be proposed as the source of biological systems until we see an intelligence create a biological system.

Ever hear of genetic engineering? By your logic we can't propose that life or biological structures came about by nature acting alone because we NEVER observed nature acting alone doing so.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2004 11:30 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2004 12:25 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 207 (143065)
09-18-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by PaulK
09-16-2004 11:55 AM


Re: Clarification
quote:
PaulK:
Given Philip Johnson's standing in the ID movement if he asks a member to resign for endorsing Common Descent then we have strong evidence that Common Descent is against the ID movement's "official line" even if they permit others holding similar views to remain.

Yup, sure, whatever you say. Please present the evidence that is what took place. I will take the word of IDists over your inference based on partial evidence.

Taken from
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1329

The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us.

The only evidence you have exists in your mind and maybe the minds of other anti-IDists. IOW you have nothing.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2004 11:55 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 207 (143077)
09-18-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
09-18-2004 12:25 PM


I was merely asking for the positive evidence for materialistic naturalism.

quote:
crashfrog:
No, you were asked for the evidence for a designer. You offered a supposed lack of evidence for naturalism via a rhetorical question.

I gave evidence for design. Then I asked for you and your ilk to do the same but to support your faith.

On NS RM:

quote:
crashfrog:
Together, we've seen these processes generate endless variety and novelty, as you have been shown in other threads.

That would be a lie. Please point me to where I have been shown this. Even Theobald's 29 evidences doesn't discuss a mechanism.

on genetic engineering:

quote:
crashfrog:
Certainly, but I've never heard of it doing anything but shuffle genes already created by natural selection and random mutation. I've never heard of any genetic engineers engineering a totally novel organism from scratch, as you would have us believe intelligence can do.

Talk about moving goalposts! Can you support your assertion that the genes were already created by natural selection and random mutation?

No one has ever heard of nature acting alone bring about a totally novel organism from scratch.

By your logic we can't propose that life or biological structures came about by nature acting alone because we NEVER observed nature acting alone doing so.

[quote]

Nice unsubstantiated assertion. Seems that is what evolutionists are good at.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2004 12:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2004 1:05 PM ID man has taken no action
 Message 118 by Silent H, posted 09-18-2004 1:40 PM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 207 (145029)
09-27-2004 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Nic Tamzek
09-25-2004 11:22 PM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is talk design a peer-reviewed journal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Nic:
Nope.

Then according to Joe Meert it is invisible to science. That means it doesn't count for much.

Get your article published and someone may take notice.

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 10:59 AM

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 11:00 AM


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Nic Tamzek, posted 09-25-2004 11:22 PM Nic Tamzek has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:03 PM ID man has replied
 Message 128 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:06 PM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 207 (145032)
09-27-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ID man
09-27-2004 11:59 AM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
I don't know if any of this has been posted so here goes:

Welcome to the home page of Dr. Richard M. v. Sternberg

This one supports what I posted about Richard being part of the baraminology group:
Letter from the Baraminology Study Group

Response to questions from The Scientist

From: Richard Sternberg
To: Trevor Stokes
Date: Wednesday - September 1, 2004 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Interest in commentary.

Dear Dr. Stokes,

With regard to your story on the article by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, I'm happy to answer a few questions.

First, Dr. Meyer's article was submitted to the PBSW in the normal way and was then passed along to three scientists for review. All three reviewers hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research institute. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication. The reviewers disagreed on specific details but all agreed that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate.

Furthermore, while I too disagreed with several important aspects of the paper, I concurred in the view that it was worthy of publication and debate. Since the time of the publication of the paper, several members of the Biological Society of Washington have told me that they found the paper "stimulating" and "informative," that it brings to the fore complex and important issues that most biologists want to avoid.

Second, I'm surprised at some of the outrageous rumors that seem to be swirling around the publication of this paper. In addition to baseless questions about the peer review process, the rumors have labeled me a "creationist." As a matter of fact, I am a structuralist who has given several papers and presentations critiquing creationism. Dr. Meyer has also been accused of being a "creationist," which judging from the paper is a highly inaccurate description of his views. It's fascinating how the "creationist" label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

I'm a scientist, not a politician. I have a PhD in evolutionary biology and another PhD in theoretical biology, and have published more than 30 papers in peer-reviewed scientific publications (my vita is available on request). I have always followed the principle that scientists should be open to pursue all scientific questions and not be shackled by convention and authority. The reaction to the paper by some extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community.

Sincerely,

Rick Sternberg


(bold added)


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 11:59 AM ID man has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 207 (145033)
09-27-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 12:03 PM


Get your article published and someone may take notice.

quote:
crashfrog:
Well, if he gets it published the way you ID guys have to get your stuff published, the notice he attracts is going to be of the legal variety.

Meyer's article was published the same way other scientists get their articles published, via peer-review. If you have any evidence to the contrary please provide it.

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 11:09 AM


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:11 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 207 (145036)
09-27-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Nic Tamzek
09-25-2004 11:22 PM


on double standards
Let's see if Nic cares to answer:

Meyer's paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized "intelligent design" since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life's history and diversity, then assert that an "intelligent designer" provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of "intelligent design" presented, just as in all previous work on "intelligent design". Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. "An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" is not a model.

The premise is false in that ID has presented the positive evidence for its case. The case is in the literature I have posted as well as other essays, articles and books. BTW, we can’t deny what has yet to be shown. IOW if you could show your process was sufficient odds are we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

However we can compare- what is the positive evidence that natural selection acting on random variations or mutations can do what evolutionists assert it can? IOW what is the positive evidence that a bacterial flagellum can arise by nature acting alone? What is the positive evidence for asexual and sexual reproduction arising by nature acting alone? What we will find, as with endo-symbiosis and the alleged origins of eukaryotes, is that what is being looked for has to be assumed in the first place. IOW Dr. Margulis started with the assumption that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes and then fit her observance to that assumption. The same can be said of the alleged evolution of metazoans. Then these guys have the audacity to mention details. LoL! The theory of evolution is void of details. The ‘why’ in the theory of evolution is what? The theory of evolution can only speculate based on the assumption. How can we falsify the theory of evolution? What is the empirical test to show that euks. evolved from proks.?

“An unintelligent, non-guiding force did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model. "The neo-Darwinian concept of random variation carries with it the major fallacy that everything conceivable is possible" Ho and Saunders.

The double-standards in the first paragraph alone would give any rational person caution for the contents of the rest of the paper.

OK Nic anytime you are ready. Take your time I understand that discussion boards are not your life.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Nic Tamzek, posted 09-25-2004 11:22 PM Nic Tamzek has taken no action

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 207 (145038)
09-27-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 12:11 PM


Meyer's article was published the same way other scientists get their articles published, via peer-review.

quote:
crashfrog:
The journal is a journal of systematics and taxonomy. This is not an article on those subjects.

Clearly, peer-review did not occur.


As usual you don't know what you are talking about:

First, Dr. Meyer's article was submitted to the PBSW in the normal way and was then passed along to three scientists for review. All three reviewers hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research institute. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication. The reviewers disagreed on specific details but all agreed that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate.

The above taken from:
http://www.rsternberg.net/TheScientist.htm

Statement of facts

Editorship

I became managing editor of the Proceedings in December 2001 when the position was offered to me by the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW). At the time I was finishing a post-doctoral fellowship at the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History and entering on a new job at GenBank at the National Institutes of Health. In my position at NIH I am assigned to spend 50% of my time working as an curator of the NCBI DNA database and 50% of my time as doing research as a Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. I worked as managing editor of the Proceedings as an adjunct position to my research at the Smithsonian.

During my tenure as managing editor from December 2001 to August 2004 I was responsible for the publication of 11 issues and one "bulletin" (a monograph published from time to time). I received and processed more than 200 papers as well as the one large monograph.

In October of 2003 I resigned as managing editor of the Proceedings; after almost two years I was tiring of my editorial responsibilities and eager to have more time for my own research and writing. At that time, however, no new managing editor could be found, and so without withdrawing my letter of resignation I agreed to continue on as managing editor until such time as the Council could find my replacement. That happened in May 2004, when Dr. Richard Banks agreed to replace me after the issue Volume 117-3 and a major "bulletin" that was nearly complete (both are currently in press). So as planned for some time, Dr. Banks has recently taken over as managing editor of the Proceedings. This transition had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper.

Publication process of the Proceedings in general

The process for publication of papers in the Proceedings has been straightforward. The practice was for the managing editor to receive and initially pass on all submitted papers. Then, depending on the subject matter, the managing editor would pass the paper to an associate editor with expertise in the appropriate field for soliciting peer reviews and then editing the paper as needed to prepare it for publication. The managing editor could also select an ad hoc associate editor for a particular paper if no member of the board of associate editors was suitable. Finally, the managing editor could take direct charge of a paper if that was appropriate. In the case of papers assigned to associate editors, the paper would be returned to the managing editor for any final editing before transmission to the printer for inclusion in the next issue of the Proceedings. An overview of the general procedure was provided in a form letter to all submitting authors.

During my tenure as managing editor some problems arose in the process. In one case I strongly disagreed with an associate editor in his handling of a paper. To deal with the problem, I took control of the paper again, had it reviewed and edited, and published it. Needless to say, the associated editor was upset, and denied that I had the authority to do this.

In the aftermath of this controversy I met with the Council of the BSW and asked them to clarify and make explicit the rights and responsibility of the managing editor vis à vis the associate editors. At a meeting in November 2002, a near-unanimous Council backed me up completely and formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts. The Council asked me, moreover, to draft a formal process document describing the procedures of the Proceedings including their ruling on the role of the managing editor. The document is still in process, and I expect to complete a draft for the Council's review and approval in the coming weeks.

At no time during my nearly three years as managing editor did I ever ask the Council for its input on any editorial decision regarding any particular paper. Nor did the Council itself or anyone on the Council intimate to me that the Council ought to be in any way involved in editorial decision-making with regard to particular papers. Even in its recent post-Meyer minor revision of its publication rules, the Council only requires that two people—the managing editor and an associate editor—be involved in the decision to publish paper. As will be seen, an equivalent policy was applied to the Meyer paper, as I consulted with a member of the Council before making a decision to publish the paper.

Finally, critics of the Meyer paper have made the false claim that proper procedures were not followed by quoting out of context a sentence from the inside cover of the Proceedings which reads, "Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors." What the sentence means is that manuscripts are reviewed by some member of the group of associate editors. At no time in the past has the board as a whole (or even more than one associate editor) ever reviewed any paper, nor has that practice and policy changed as a result of the recent controversy.

Publication process for the Meyer paper

The Meyer paper was submitted to the Proceedings in early 2004. Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper. As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published. I had previously chosen on several occasions to handle certain papers directly and that was accepted as a normal practice by everyone involved with the Proceedings. (This was confirmed even after the controversy over the Meyer paper arose. In a description of a Council meeting called to discuss the controversy, President Dr. McDiarmid told me by email, "The question came up as to why you didn't pass the ms [manuscript] on to an associate editor and several examples were mentioned of past editorial activities where a manuscript was dealt with directly by the editor and did not go to an associate editor and no one seemed to be bothered...")

Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published. This person is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, a member of the Council, and someone whose judgment I respect. I thought it was important to double-check my view as to the wisdom of publishing the Meyer paper. We discussed the Meyer paper during at least three meetings, including one soon after the receipt of the paper, before it was sent out for review.

After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

From original receipt to publication the processing, reviewing, revising, and editing of the Meyer paper took about six months. (By contrast, I once helped colleagues at the Museum rush out a paper on a topic upon which they feared that others were about to preempt them in about four weeks from receipt of the paper to publication.) Even after the paper was completely finished, due to other more pressing matters it sat on my desk for more than two weeks before I finally made time to send it to the printer. Thus, any allegations that I somehow rushed the publication process are patently false.

Aftermath

Recently I was asked by a reporter if I felt in retrospect that publication of the Meyer paper was "inappropriate." I responded as follows:

I'm taking inappropriate to mean one of two things, either a faux pas such as wearing brown shoes with a blue suit, or something politically incorrect. The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa. Now his ideas are considered politically incorrect or "anti-scientific" by some. But since I don't do politically correct science and since I think that human reason (i.e., science) is capable of at least considering questions about ultimate causes, no, I don't think his paper was inappropriate in any meaningful sense.

Continuing on, I provided my view of the range of reactions that I have observed among colleagues, which seems to me a suitable ending for this overview of the controversy:

I've received four kinds of responses regarding the Meyer article. The first is one of extreme hostility and anger that the peer-review process was not barred to a "creationist" author—no questions asked (a minority view). The second is what I'd term the herd instinct: this response arises when some key people (often members of the first group) are upset. Some people, once they begin to feel the heat from individuals with strong opinions, feign being upset too or actually become upset, for fear that they'll seem to be a "supporter" of an unpopular or despised position. Many of these individuals initially displayed no concern or qualms about the paper until some loud voices displayed their discontent. Those in the third category don't really care about the issue one way or the other, because it doesn't impact their research. In terms of population size, groups two and three are by far the largest. The fourth group consists of those who found the paper "informative," "stimulating," "thought-provoking," (real quotes I've heard from colleagues about the paper), including some who are in agreement with some of Meyer's ideas. Many members of the third and fourth groups have told me that in their opinion sooner or later the design issue will have to be debated in a reasoned manner.

crasgfrog you should read my posts and its links BEFORE responding.

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 11:18 AM


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:19 PM ID man has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022