From time to time folks evolutionists cite the absense of peer review coverage of ID as evidence for arguing the non-science of ID. In the Wall Street Journal 1/28/05 is an interesting commentary entiled,
The Branding Of A Heretic regarding ID peer review relative to the absense of ID input in peer review journals.
The commentary by David Klinghoffer addresses the ruination of the career of a respected Smithsonian resident evo and non IDist scientist, Richard Sternburg with two PHDs in biology for effecting the publishing an ID peer review paper in a Smithsonian science journal authored by Cambridge doctorate, Steven Meyer entitled,
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories..
"The piece happened to be the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms--such as the miniature machines and complex circuits within cells--are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection. ............
The offending review-essay was written by Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism--mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. Mr. Meyer gathers the threads of their comments to make his own case. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation........" says Klinghoffer in the commentary.
Perhaps in this thread we can discuss Klinghoffer's point he makes in the commentary that given Mr. Sternburg is not an IDist or apologist for YEC et al, mainstream science is hampering science by it's hostile attitude toward ID in the classroom and in the science field at large and in this case, peer publication.
My science debate counterparts have consistently argued that the sole reason ID doesn't get into peer journals is that it's not science and has no scientific basis for consideration. Well, it appears that here's some pretty uppity science fellows who see otherwise all of whom are certainly not YEC creationists. We have a Smithsonian double PHD and another PHD here, Sternburg and Meyer. But that's not all. In the article it is noted that before allowing the article published in the peer journal, Mr. Sternburg consulted several of his science colleagues who advised him to go ahead with the ID publication after some adjustments. It appears that it's not just the IDist PHDs like Baumgardner, Austin, et al who see a place for ID in science.
So for those folks who've been after me to cite a peer review, here's what happened to the prestigious fellow who dared publish the first ever ID peer review on biology. Likely others will be intimidated to even try to wedge ID into the peer science literature.
Get The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion columnists, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and book and arts reviews.Btw, the National Review also covered this story.
IN THE NEWS forum is my preferance.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
™ Version 4.2