Washington Post reports witchhunt by evolutionists.

According to the official description of the Proceedings published in each issue, the journal "contains papers bearing on systematics in the biological sciences (botany, zoology, and paleontology)." The journal has published in areas such as comparative cytogenetics, phylogenetic hypotheses and classifications, developmental studies, and reviews of faunal groups. In addition, evolutionary scenarios are frequently presented at the end of basic systematic studies. Even a casual survey of papers published in the Proceedings and the occasional Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington will reveal many titles in such areas:Rickart, E. A. 2003. Chromosomes of Philippine mammals (Insectivora, Dermoptera, Primates, Rodentia, Carnivora). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 116(3): 699-709.Panero, J. and V. A. Funk. 2002. Toward a phylogenetic subfamilial classification for the Compositae (Asteraceae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 115(4): 909-922.Pohle, G. and F. Marques. 2000. Larval stages of Paradasygyius depressus (Bell, 1835) (Crustacea: Decapoda: Brachyura: Majidae) and a phylogenetic hypothesis for 21 genera of Majidae. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 113: 739-760.Newman, W. A. 1985. The abyssal hydrothermal vent invertebrate fauna: a glimpse of antiquity? Bull. Biol. Soc. Wash. 6: 231242.Brusca, R. C. and B. R. Wallerstein. 1979B. The marine isopod crustaceans of the Gulf of California. II. Idoteidae. New genus, new species, new records, and comments on the morphology, taxonomy and evolution within the family. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 92(2): 253-271.Given more time for research (which I won't put in to address this basically unfair complaint), I could certainly find additional and even broader papers. Thus, the topic of Meyer's paper was within the scope of the journal.

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 respected. 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 responded and 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.

Crash, the Washington Post is not conservative, not at all. It is "mainstream liberal"

He also makes a good case it was properly peer-reviewed.

randman writes:Percey, I hear your spin. Try to look at this from a more objective perspective, as someone would if they didn't have a dog in this fight.

First off, he sent the paper to 3 scientists who thought the topic should be aired.

Second, it is within the scope of the journal. Of course, the journal had not published an ID paper, but at the same time, arguing that because it is ID, it is a priori not within the scope of the journal is, imo, way out of bounds.

Washington Post writes:Sternberg harbored his own doubts about Darwinian theory. He also acknowledged that this journal had not published such papers in the past and that he wanted to stir the scientific pot.

He followed their standard practice.

Washington Post writes:Sternberg harbored his own doubts about Darwinian theory. He also acknowledged that this journal had not published such papers in the past and that he wanted to stir the scientific pot.

The scientists had to have been handpicked. Three randomly chosen biologists would not approve the paper. Were this a realistic possibility it would mean that so many scientists think ID worthy of consideration that we wouldn't be having this discussion and Sternberg's career wouldn't be in ruins.

Summarizing this list, there is one non-taxonomic title in 2003, one in 2002, one in 2000, one in 1985, and one in 1979.

This means that 40% of all non-taxonomic articles in the BSW Proceedings have come under Sternberg's watch. Before Sternberg, non-taxonomic articles appeared at the rate of one every six years or so. After Sternberg became editor the rate went up to one per year, six times higher.

randman writes:Quit spinning and just look at what the guy is saying.

It comes as no surprise that such persons like yourself who set themselves up as the judge of objectivity invariably conclude that it's the other guy who's biased.

What is it about ID that leads you to conclude it belongs in the taxonomy sub-specialty of biology?

Post article makes evos look bad here is not because they are inclined towards ID, but because the evo community has acted shamefully, and the rest of the nation sees it, but somehow you guys don't.