Behe's new paper

[QuestionMark]

Does Behe publishing in QRB mean the peer review process has failed, or that Behe is a legitimate scientist doing legitimate science?

 

[Skwim]

Does Behe publishing in QRB mean the peer review process has failed, or that Behe is a legitimate scientist doing legitimate science?

Well, getting it published in QRB certainly does raise questions of its peer review policy, particularity in view of some of the critiques of the paper.
HERE is one of them.

 

[David M]

Well, getting it published in QRB certainly does raise questions of its peer review policy, particularity in view of some of the critiques of the paper.
HERE is one of them.

Looks like its another case of an DI fellow publishing a review paper that doesn't mention ID in any way whatsoever but just covers some aspect of evolution.

Note the conclusion of the critique:

Behe has provided a useful survey of mutations that cause adaptation in short-term lab experiments on microbes (note that at least one of these—Rich Lenski’s study— extends over several decades).

Of course the ID supporters will point to this as being a peer-reviewed paper that supports ID, but they will be lying when they do so.

 

[Man of Faith]

The information that I gather from the internets is creationists don't do real science, only evolutionary biologists that promote the ToE do real science.

 

[ellenjanuary]

The information that I gather from the internets is creationists don't do real science, only evolutionary biologists that promote the ToE do real science.

Creationists do real science, probably in all fields of scientific endeavor. What real scientists do not do, however, is creation science.

 

[Skwim]

The information that I gather from the internets is creationists don't do real science, only evolutionary biologists that promote the ToE do real science.

Well, those and a host of other scientists do real science. But you are correct in noting that almost every creationist does not do real science. Those that do almost invariably work in unrelated fields. And I would say that exceptionally few creationists actually understand the science behind evolution, and those that do choose to ignore it because either they have to in order to hang onto their faith or they've found that promoting creationism can be a cash cow.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The information that I gather from the internets is creationists don't do real science, only evolutionary biologists that promote the ToE do real science.

True. Creationists generally don't have the requisite intellectual capacity to understand the concepts involved in scientific research. Not everyone is smart enough to be a rocket scientist - or any kind of scientist for that matter.

 

[painted wolf]

Does Behe publishing in QRB mean the peer review process has failed, or that Behe is a legitimate scientist doing legitimate science?

Behe is a legitimate scientist and he does legitimate science... he just doesn't do any of it to demonstrate ID... even this paper is just a review of adaptive mutations seen in short-term lab experiments with bacteria.

It doesn't address ID or any evidence in support of creationism at all.

Scientists don't have to be scientific 100% of the time, and Behe is very skilled at doing legitimate science on one day and then jumping track to pseudoscience the next, depending on what audience is paying him.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

The information that I gather from the internets is creationists don't do real science, only evolutionary biologists that promote the ToE do real science.

They don't do real science in support of creationism. Many creationists do science in support of evolution or at least within the "evolutionary framework" everyday and then go to church and preach against the very work they just did.

It's amazing really... how they can talk about of both sides of the faces at the same time.

Behe, Dembski, Kurt Wise and others... are perfectly happy "serving two masters".

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

The information that I gather from the internets is creationists don't do real science, only evolutionary biologists that promote the ToE do real science.

That's right.

 

[QuestionMark]

Hello all,
I'm kind of surprised that no one has recognized that a review of what evolution is capable of sets the backdrop for saying what it is not capable of. Since Intelligent Design is often seen as an inference to the best explanation (and a Designer is seen as being a better inference than a natural process such as Darwinian evolution) the connection between this paper and ID seem unmistakable to me. That's why I suggest it's a sign the peer review process is broken.
Looking forward,
QM

 

[painted wolf]

Peer Review isn't a perfect process and it clearly has flaws that become a minor nuisance when journals are crunched for time and funds. But peer review doesn't end with publication, and bad papers are usually shredded in the follow up commentary and citation process.

wa:do

 

[QuestionMark]

PW,
What did you think of the content of the paper? Do you think it will be shredded?
Looking forward,
QM

 

[painted wolf]

I think it already has in the bloggosphere. I agree with many of the commenters, he did a poor and confusing job of supporting his premise. But he does give a good review of short-term evolution experiments and their resulting beneficial mutations.

wa:do

 

[Man of Faith]

Peer Review isn't a perfect process and it clearly has flaws that become a minor nuisance when journals are crunched for time and funds. But peer review doesn't end with publication, and bad papers are usually shredded in the follow up commentary and citation process.

wa:do

This is what creationists have been trying to tell evolutionists for years. The peer review process if flawed. It is scientists that believe in evolution peer reviewing scientists that believe in evolution and if they find a scientist that believes in creation then they are snubbed.

 

[Tristesse]

This is what creationists have been trying to tell evolutionists for years. The peer review process if flawed. It is scientists that believe in evolution peer reviewing scientists that believe in evolution and if they find a scientist that believes in creation then they are snubbed.

Damn right they're snubbed. And for good reasons too. If your "science" relies on a book that was written a couple thousand years ago, by men who knew so little about the world around them, you don't get published until you can demonstrate why that book is a good authority.

 

[painted wolf]

This is what creationists have been trying to tell evolutionists for years. The peer review process if flawed. It is scientists that believe in evolution peer reviewing scientists that believe in evolution and if they find a scientist that believes in creation then they are snubbed.

He's not being snubbed, he is being told flaws in his methodology. Those flaws have nothing to do with his world view.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it already has in the bloggosphere. I agree with many of the commenters, he did a poor and confusing job of supporting his premise. But he does give a good review of short-term evolution experiments and their resulting beneficial mutations.

wa:do

I haven't had the chance to read his paper (link, anyone?) but according to one blog I saw, Behe says we have not observed novel "Complex Functional elemenTs" (CFTs) evolve in the microbial evolution experiments that have been done to date. The definition of a CFT seems a bit vague to me, but at any rate apparently Behe admits the evolution of human sickle-cells as an example of the evolution of a CFT. But the remarkable phenotype of sickle-cells is caused by a single mutation of a single nucleic acid in the hemoglobin protein. Haven't we observed many such adaptations in microbial evolution experiments? I recently went to a lecture where bacteria were observed to evolve resistance to Cipro in a matter of hours, due to a single mutation of a single nucleic acid.

 

[Man of Faith]

Damn right they're snubbed. And for good reasons too. If your "science" relies on a book that was written a couple thousand years ago, by men who knew so little about the world around them, you don't get published until you can demonstrate why that book is a good authority.

As opposed to a book written 200 years ago?

 

[McBell]

opcorn: