1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Behe's new paper

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by QuestionMark, Dec 14, 2010.

  1. QuestionMark

    QuestionMark Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    74
    Ratings:
    +1
    Does Behe publishing in QRB mean the peer review process has failed, or that Behe is a legitimate scientist doing legitimate science?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    23,884
    Ratings:
    +8,555
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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.
     
  3. David M

    David M Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,045
    Ratings:
    +196
    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:

    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.
     
  4. Man of Faith

    Man of Faith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +89
    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.
     
  5. ellenjanuary

    ellenjanuary Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    2,245
    Ratings:
    +115
    Creationists do real science, probably in all fields of scientific endeavor. What real scientists do not do, however, is creation science.
     
  6. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    23,884
    Ratings:
    +8,555
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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.
     
  7. Kilgore Trout

    Kilgore Trout Misanthropic Humanist

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    26,686
    Ratings:
    +9,142
    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.
     
  8. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,651
    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
     
  9. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,651
    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
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    23,259
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    That's right.
     
  11. QuestionMark

    QuestionMark Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    74
    Ratings:
    +1
    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
     
  12. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,651
    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
     
  13. QuestionMark

    QuestionMark Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    74
    Ratings:
    +1
    PW,
    What did you think of the content of the paper? Do you think it will be shredded?
    Looking forward,
    QM
     
  14. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,651
    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
     
  15. Man of Faith

    Man of Faith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +89
    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.
     
  16. Tristesse

    Tristesse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,341
    Ratings:
    +117
    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.
     
  17. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,651
    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
     
  18. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,675
    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.
     
  19. Man of Faith

    Man of Faith Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,423
    Ratings:
    +89
    As opposed to a book written 200 years ago?
     
  20. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    42,599
    Ratings:
    +7,305
Loading...