ID Has been Peer Reviewed!! (creation, Article)

[linwood]

And it seems it`s the same old negative arguments without actually giving any supported evidence of design.

Oh well..at least they finally published something.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._9_10_2004.asp

[linwood]

I guess it isn`t so exciting after all.

Looks like something fishy was going on...

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......

....According to the PBSW's instructions for contributors, "Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees." It seems, therefore, that Meyer's paper was not published in accordance with the journal's established review procedure.

I would like to know how it got published if it wasn`t even reviewed.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new...r_9_7_2004.asp

[Sunstone]

I noticed the report that some scientists fear the article will be cited in an attempt to get ID into public school curricula. Could that explain why this was done? If so, it's pretty devious.

It's tricks like this that make me think ID doesn't have a leg to stand on. I don't understand the mathematics of some ID theories, but I do understand that stooping to tricks to get published does not usually indicate a legitimate position.

[kbc_1963]

stooping to tricks to get published does not usually indicate a legitimate position

Piltdown man.

[Sunstone]

The fraud of Piltdown man was exposed by the scientific community. A fact that argues for the effectiveness of peer review.

[linwood]

Originally Posted by kbc_1963

Piltdown man.

Was that a trick or legitimate mistake?

Who exposed the falsity of Piltdown man?
Was it a creationist or was it someone from the scientific community?

I still won`t say this ID paper was published by trickery (I won`t discount it either) since I haven`t found out yet exactly how it did get published if the journals reviewers didn`t ok it.

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

The fraud of Piltdown man was exposed by the scientific community. A fact that argues for the effectiveness of peer review.

oops...got my answer.
Thanks.

[linwood]

It took me all day but I think I`ve finally got some idea of how this paper got published without editorial review.

I`ve been checking the infidels forum because I was sure they`d be seriously ripping this to shreds but surprisingly it took them awhile to even realise it happened.

Once they realised however they started trying to find out how it got published and are getting some quick results.

The Panda thumb was the first to offer a critique of the paper and it`s pretty scathing.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html

Here are some quotes about how it got published without review

von Sternberg, the former editor, apparently published the paper on his own as a sort of swan song.

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.

The answer probably lies in the editor, Richard von Sternberg. Sternberg happens to be a creationist and ID fellow traveler who is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College in Tennessee. (The BSG is a research group devoted to the determination of the created kinds of Genesis. We are NOT making this up!) Sternberg was also a signatory of the Discovery Institute’s “100 Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism” statement.

Richard Von Sternberg is apparently an ex-creationist or..was I dunno it`s not clear yet.

Here are some threads at II that are attempting to figure it out.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=96288

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=96110&page=1

It doesn`t look like it`s on the up & up.

-It was published without the review boards knowledge of its existence.
-The review board who would have reviewed it say they would have rejected it.
-The editor who took it upon himself to publish it is allegedly an ex-creationist.
-The editor who published it as a last act before leaving the Journal.
-The editor who published it has been invited to Finland for a Evolution/ID conference with at least one member of the Discovery Institute (ID Central)
-There will apparently be a retraction of the paper of sorts in the next issue of the journal


This is the absolute lowest form of crap there is.

If you have to resort to this type of deception and sleight of hand then it is overwhelmingly obvious you don`t have a leg to stand on.

I think the savvy folks at the Discovery Institute just screwed themselves royally.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040903/04

[linwood]

I suppose I should actually post Meyers paper.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...%20-%20Science

Thats at the Discovery Institutes web site .

The odd thing is that it states the Meyer still holds the copyright.

I was under the impression that the journal that publishes a work is usually given the copyright to the paper.

Am I off base here?