Debate:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?

From Conservapedia

I've actually read a few that got publish in lower ranked journals, no doubt nepatism or something of the sort.

Why? That's easy. There is no testable hypothesis.

Occasionally an ID "scientist" will do some experiment or something, but neither the hypothesis nor the conclusion are relevant or support with respect to/by the experimental design.

When and if they can make the claim that the hypothesis was supported, quite often the hypothesis are in fact a negative proof fallacy: Are experiment supports the hypothesis because we failed to falsify the existence of an intelligent agent.

Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article and submitted it for peer review in the scientific community? If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all of their scientific findings and publishings???

In case you didn't know, the scientific community is the total body of world scientists. Scientists submit their findings/journals to the community for peer revision and review - basically a fact checking and discussion organization.

Instead, Intelligent Designists (such as Michael Behe) have chosen to write books for the general public, and have skipped the scientific fact checking step altogether... Why is this?

Intranetusa 14:33, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Three responses, and a warning:

Behe and others have not "skipped the scientific fact checking step altogether" and your claim is libelous
an intelligent design article was published by a Smithsonian journal and it was not withdrawn despite bigoted demands by evolutionists to do so
evolutionists are censors and do everything they can to suppress other viewpoints and research

Now the warning: your account will be blocked if you persist in posting falsehoods here.--Aschlafly 14:40, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

andy, you throw the word "libel" around too easily. And are we now censoring on debate topics too?-PhoenixWright 14:55, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The article published was making a case for ID, it was not producing any science it was to knock down evolution. The Argument was entirely an argument from incredulity, basically "I cannot see any other way that this could have happened" That argument is considered by many to be antiscientific --Brendanw 13:44, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

If an archaeologist finds a stone with grooves in it in the shape of letters, and he concludes that it was engraved by humans because he can't see that it could happen any other way, would you also call that an "argument from incredulity" and claim that his conclusion was unscientific? Philip J. Rayment 07:28, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Ames, this isn't Wikipedia. Conservapedia does not allow falsehoods.--Aschlafly 14:57, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy this is a debate page. And again with the name! If you're accusing me of something out with it!-PhoenixWright 15:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Response to Intranetusa:

The question is like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question: It presumes something that you have yet to establish, and in this case is blatantly false (hence Andy's response).

People who believe in intelligent design have published in peer-reviewed journals. Admittedly they haven't published very many articles openly supporting intelligent design in the mainstream journals, but it has occurred. In addition, they published articles in which they don't openly make the connection with intelligent design, they've published articles in peer reviewed journals that don't censor such papers (e.g. the Journal of Creation), and they've been refused publication in mainstream journals on ideological grounds. See also Suppression of alternatives to evolution.

Philip J. Rayment 16:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

I believe the title for this debate could have been better phrased; obviously at least a few scientists that believe in intelligent design have had an article published on some subject at some point or another - this debate was intended to deal with (I believe) articles specifically on the subject of intelligent design. That being said, while it is true that the Journal of Creation does not censor such papers, I'm not sure that all of their "peer-reviewed" content could really be classified as scientific in nature anyway. Feebasfactor 16:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Why are you putting "peer-reviewed" in 'scare quotes'? You are correct in another point, but like the title of this debate, you could have worded it better. Yes, the Journal of Creation does include content that it not scientific. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand? Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, those quotes ("scare quotes") could really have been better placed... I meant to relate it to my following point - that peer-review is not applied just to scientific articles in this journal, so it is not an exclusively scientific journal. That is relevant in that it is a characteristic of one of the only journals in which intelligent desgin articles are published, but to what degree that matters or what it implies is another issue. Feebasfactor 21:59, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It does not count at all if people believing in intelligent design have published unrelated scientific articles in peer reviewed journals. "Journal of Creation" is not a peer reviewed scientific journal in the true sense. Can you cite at least 2 or 3 articles in an accepted scientific journal supporting "Intelligent design"? --JBuscombe 16:33, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

You say that it does not count that ID proponents have published non-ID material in peer-reviewed journals, but in some circumstances it does count: the circumstances where sceptics accuse such people of not being real scientists. And it's possible that that was one of the points the debate-starter had in mind, so there was merit in pointing that out.

Please justify your accusation that the Journal of Creation is "not a peer reviewed scientific journal in the true sense".

Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Hi again Phil, this is "Ames"; anyways, the burden of proof for JoC is on *you*-PhoenixWright 21:00, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah, admitting who you are, now! I know you're not really admitting that. I'm not sure that the burden of proof is really on me. The JoC claims to be a peer-reviewed journal, so anybody claiming otherwise has the burden of proof on them to show that it's not what it claims to be. If you want me to prove that it does claim to be, see here. Philip J. Rayment 21:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Wait, Philip - I may be misunderstanding something about how the burden of proof works. If the JoC claims to be a peer-reviewed journal... isn't the burden on proof on them to demonstrate so in the first place? I don't doubt that they are ~~"peer-reviewed"~~ peer-reviewed, I just don't perhaps quite see what you mean with respect to "claims". Within the context of this debate? Hmm, then I suppose... Feebasfactor 22:06, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

What I'm concerned about is the double standard being applied. The original poster wrote, "Scientists submit their findings/journals to the community for peer revision and review". He is, of course, referring to journals such as Science, Nature, etc. So am I supposed to simply take his word for that, or the word of the journals concerned? Is the burden of proof on those journals to show that they really are peer reviewed before I accept his claim? If not, then why is it expected for the Journal of Creation? Philip J. Rayment 22:17, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It is true that there has been a creationist article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: an article by Stephen Meyer was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a respected journal of biology. Meyer (director of the science portion of the Discovery Institute) submitted an article that was unabashedly and wholly creationist. However, it is worth noting that:

-The article was a literature review, which surveyed the previous scholarship on the subject, rather than conducting any experimentation. While not unusual, this is generally considered rather less conclusive evidence on any topic when compared with experimentation.

-Even further, the journal's publisher has stated that the editor of the journal at the time, Richard Sternberg, circumvented the normal peer review process to publish the article, as it was the last issue of the journal over which he would be editor. Sternberg has said it was peer-reviewed, but it is notable that the only "peer" to do the reviewing was Sternberg himself, and he circumvented the normal process and is keeping the other peers he alleges were involved entirely secret, in direct contrast to every other year of the journal wherein peer reviewers were made public in keeping with consistent scientific practice. (Sternberg has since made some rather conflated claims that he has been persecuted for his actions).

The Journal of Creation is a different matter. It has indeed published a variety of papers on intelligent design. However, it is worth noting that they have drastically different methodologies from that of virtually every other scientific organization. They are published and sponsored by an avowedly partisan group, a group that is dedicated to spreading a view decidedly out of the mainstream, and such status ordinarily would cast doubt on the scientific integrity of the papers published there, no matter what the partisan group involved. JoC is so dedicated to this end that it accepts articles and reviews from any discipline (ranging from biology to philosophy or the like), another unusual aspect. Further, while it describes itself as "peer-reviewed," it does not provide any access to information on the process (aside from a set of submission guidelines which suggests articles be short, since they are more likely to be read). The journal is not respected among the scientific community.

One way to look at it would be to consider how you would look at a scientific journal called Examinations of Health if it were funded and edited by individuals at the company that lobbies for McDonald's. One would tend to view its conclusions with a bit of skepticism, as well, particularly if they decided that most Americans were lacking in Deliciousity B, an important vitamin only available in the Big Mac, and if they alleged that the mainstream journals were all ideologically devoted to hiding the truth about Deliciousity B from America.--TomMoore 21:56, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The Meyer article was an ID article, not a creationist article.

It's true that it was a literature review, but that was still enough for the anti-IDers to get plenty upset about it.

The publisher did not say that the editor circumvented the normal peer review process.

It is also not true to say that the only peer reviewing was done by Sternberg. It is also not normally the case that the names of reviewers are published.

"Conflated" claims? His claims have been well substantiated.

Your description of the Journal of Creation is decidedly one-eyed. You don't say what their "different methodologies" are, nor how it makes any difference. They are no more "partisan" than other journals that are blatantly pro-evolution. Yes, they cover a wide range of topics, but there's nothing particularly unusual about that. Some journals are very specific, whilst others are more general. Being one of the very few journals that will publish creationist material means that they need to cover a broad range else many of the articles would have nowhere to be published.

What access to information on the peer-review process do other journals normally provide? You've said nothing, other than making innuendo, that they are actually any different to any other journal in this regard.

And your comment about them not being respected in the scientific community is nonsense, else they wouldn't have scientists writing and reviewing for them! Unless, of course, you mean among that part of the scientific community that doesn't agree with their views, in which case you using a blatantly self-serving argument.

As for your comparison with a journal funded by McDonalds, there are two problems. First, the Journal of Creation is not funded by a profit-making organisation. Second, how is the Journal different in this regard to, for example, the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, funded (I assume; at least supported) by the pro-evolutionary Smithsonian Institute?

Philip J. Rayment 22:31, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"The Meyer article was an ID article, not a creationist article."

I consider Intelligent Design and creationism to be roughly synonymous in practice, but your point is well taken. I meant intelligent design, sorry.

"It's true that it was a literature review, but that was still enough for the anti-IDers to get plenty upset about it."

Indeed.

"The publisher did not say that the editor circumvented the normal peer review process."

You are entirely incorrect: "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process." [1]

" It is also not true to say that the only peer reviewing was done by Sternberg. It is also not normally the case that the names of reviewers are published."

You are incorrect. See above or the statement of the publisher:[2]

" "Conflated" claims? His claims have been well substantiated.

I don't want to be drawn off on a tangent, but that does not seem to be true. Regardless, I don't want to get into it and stray from the issues of fact.

" Your description of the Journal of Creation is decidedly one-eyed. You don't say what their "different methodologies" are, nor how it makes any difference."

I spend the following sentences detailing how their methodologies are different: they adhere to a stated ideological and partisan goal, they don't publish their peer-review process or credentials, and they accept articles from any discipline.

"They are no more "partisan" than other journals that are blatantly pro-evolution."

Evolution is the most widely accepted theory... the fact that most articles reflect this confidence is a function of the scientific community, not bias on behalf of the publishers. As an example, the mainstream theory is also that homo sapiens evolved without interspecial relations with neanderthals or the like, and so few articles represent dissent with this view. Nonetheless, recent papers are successfully challenging this mainstream theory, and these articles are published because they are well-researched and methodologically sound.

"Yes, they cover a wide range of topics, but there's nothing particularly unusual about that. Some journals are very specific, whilst others are more general. Being one of the very few journals that will publish creationist material means that they need to cover a broad range else many of the articles would have nowhere to be published."

This is actually quite unusual among scientific journals, which generally abstain from philosophy or other such unrelated topics.

"What access to information on the peer-review process do other journals normally provide? You've said nothing, other than making innuendo, that they are actually any different to any other journal in this regard."

Okay. Let me take an example from one of the most prominent journals of the day, Nature. Their policies and processes are available for understanding and review here: [3] and [4]. This is the general and reasonable standard.

"And your comment about them not being respected in the scientific community is nonsense, else they wouldn't have scientists writing and reviewing for them! Unless, of course, you mean among that part of the scientific community that doesn't agree with their views, in which case you using a blatantly self-serving argument."

In point of fact, only a proportion of individuals who write for them are scientists... note how they also accept submissions on many non-scientific topics. But even excluding the philosophers and lawyers, it is absurd to claim that any journal with scientists who submit to it must be "respected," or else the word would be obviously meaningless. What I mean by this is obviously that the vast majority of the scientific community do not consider it to be a serious and valuable scientific publication.

"As for your comparison with a journal funded by McDonalds, there are two problems. First, the Journal of Creation is not funded by a profit-making organisation. Second, how is the Journal different in this regard to, for example, the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, funded (I assume; at least supported) by the pro-evolutionary Smithsonian Institute?"

It was obviously an attempt at a humorous parallel. But as I explain above, there is a clear difference between a lobbying group dedicated to proselytizing a minority opinion and an enormously-respected institute of science which reflects the majority opinion of scientists. The Society's papers also reflect unanimous support for the theory of gravity, but it would seem absurd to claim that they were pro-gravity. If someone wrote an excellent and well-research scientific paper on intelligent design that drew clear conclusions that contradicted the reigning theories, it would be published immediately, just as my above example of an intraspecial descent paper. If you think that is not true, the onus of proof is clearly upon you to demonstrate otherwise.--TomMoore 23:23, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

It is you who is incorrect regarding the paper being peer-reviewed. The independent investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel found that "It was later revealed that [Sternberg] complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists."[5] If you read your reference carefully, you will note that it doesn't actually say what you claim it said, that Sternberg "circumvented the normal peer review process". Rather, it says that Sternberg himself "handled the entire review process". Sternberg explains[6] that the normal process would be for him to receive a paper, then hand it on to the most appropriate associate editor to arrange for peer review and editing. In this case, he himself was the most appropriate editor. This was not the first time this had occurred, and nobody had any problems with it on other occasions. He also checked with a member of the Council (but not an associate editor) as to whether he should publish it, and got a positive response. So the situation is this: Sternberg handled the review process himself, but did get it peer reviewed. The official statement from the Society does not refute this. What it does say is that Sternberg didn't consult an associate editor on it. It further says that this is not "typical editorial practice", but does not say that he actually failed to do anything that he was supposed to do.

It is usual for peer review of a paper, most particularly a very controversial paper of questionable merit, to be engaged in by more than one person. As my reference indicates, he did handle the whole process by himself... and that is why the paper's quality was immediately distanced in that statement, and probably why he chose to do it on the last issue of which he was editor. "Peer review" usually means that more than one qualified person examines the material for merit, rather than restricting the entire review process to one person. Because if you do that, you get exactly what happened: someone with an agenda who circumvents any other peer reviewers in order to push an inferior paper.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I now see that I didn't spell it out in words of one syllable for you. So I will make it even clearer this time. As I said above, with the emphasis, Sternberg handled the review process himself. I also provided a quote that it was "properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists" (emphasis added this time). But he didn't do the reviewing himself. It was properly peer reviewed by three reviewers, and Sternberg was not one of the three. One of the links I gave you above has this information:

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.

There was nothing wrong with the peer-review process. But even if the reviewers are in favour of the paper, the editor can still decide to not publish it for any reason. Sternberg decided before the reviews that it should be considered for publication, and decided after to review to go ahead with publishing, but did not discuss those decision with an associate editor. That appears to be what the BSW statement is referring to, but the peer-review process itself was done as normal.

Are you still going to maintain that the paper was not properly peer-reviewed?

Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I wrote: "It is also not true to say that the only peer reviewing was done by Sternberg. It is also not normally the case that the names of reviewers are published.". You replied, "You are incorrect. See above or the statement of the publisher:". Which of those two sentences am I incorrect about? As far as the first is concerned, I've answered that, that it was peer reviewed. As far as the second is concerned, the official statement says nothing about the names of reviewers being published.

As far as the claims being substantiated are concerned, I understand that you don't want to be drawn off-topic, but (a) you brought it up, and (b), there is independent substantiation from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (see link above).

I mentioned it only for thoroughness. Let us drop it.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I'm happy to drop the matter of Sternberg's claims, but you didn't answer my question in the paragraph before that, nor made any response to my counter-claim that the official statement says nothing about the names of the reviewers being published. Are you conceding that point? Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"I spend the following sentences detailing how their methodologies are different: they adhere to a stated ideological and partisan goal, they don't publish their peer-review process or credentials, and they accept articles from any discipline": I'd hardly call the first and last of those points different "methodologies", and your previous post didn't substantiate that publishing the peer-review process nor credentials is different to other organisations.

Methodology may not be the precise term (although I think it is, if you really want to focus on my wording. Please substitute whatever term you are more comfortable with.

Did you read the guidelines from Nature that I showed you? Notice their strict process and how amply they describe it, making such information available. I would ask that you provide corresponding information about the Journal of Creation, since I think I have obviously and amply refuted your claim that their review process is of quality. For example, please link me to where their guidelines for peer review are, or who is doing the review.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Methodology is the correct term. What's not correct is bringing in things that are not to do with methodology.

You have not refuted that the review process is of quality at all. All you have done is question biases and motives, not the process. Which you can't question, because you don't know how, or even if, it differs from that of other journals.

I have written to CMI and asked them if they would publish details of their process to shut up critics like yourself. They are considering the request.

Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"Evolution is the most widely accepted theory... the fact that most articles reflect this confidence is a function of the scientific community, not bias on behalf of the publishers": So you say. I don't agree, and have good reason to reject that. See further below.

"As an example, [snipped for length only] articles are published because they are well-researched and methodologically sound.". The fact that they will publish papers that go against some things they believe doesn't mean that there are not other things that they hold to as an article of faith and will not publish against.

Of course. It was an example. However, the onus of proof is on YOU to show me a well-researched and sound paper that was denied because of this bias. It is not upon me to disprove a bias for which you have no proof other than that it is the majority view. So I will assume that no such paper exists, and accordingly no bias, until you show me the paper.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

You say below that such a task should be easy, is such a paper exists. But this is not so. First, if it hasn't been published, how could I show you a copy? Second, if rejection is due to bias, the reviewers are not likely to admit that bias is the reason, or even see it as bias themselves. For example, if offered an ID paper, they will probably argue that it doesn't meet scientific standards (because ID is not considered scientific), not that they are rejecting it because it supports ID, as if they did that, they would be rightly condemned for their bias. So if I do show you such a paper, you can merely note that it was rejected for not meeting scientific standards (or whatever excuse was offered) and then claim that I haven't proved my point at all.

If I do show you such a paper, it would be easy for you to similarly offer an excuse for refusal to publish. You ask for a "well-researched and sound" paper. But those requirements are value judgements, so you could easily claim for any paper I showed you that they are not sufficiently well researched, and therefore not sound.

Now none of this proves my point, of course. But it does demonstrate that you are wrong to claim that it should be easy for me to show you such a paper, and it does demonstrate that you have to look deeper than just looking at the stated reasons for rejection.

But I can offer you an example. This paper was refused publication, as explained here.

Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"...scientific journals, ... generally abstain from philosophy or other such unrelated topics". Granted that the Journal of Creation do publish a considerably wider range of articles than do most other journals. My point was that some publish a very narrow range, and others publish a much wider range. Also that most don't need to publish a wide range because there's so many other journals to publish specific areas.

Please indicate to me the other respected scientific journals that publish on such a range of topics. Indicate any individual one that publishes things on biology, geology, philosophy, law, and others. Since you will not be able to do so, I will assume you are ceding my point entire.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I have already ceded your point that no other journal has as wide a range. I have not ceded your point that the range of the Journal of Creation is excessive, given its circumstances. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"Okay. Let me take an example from one of the most prominent journals of the day, Nature. Their policies and processes are available for understanding and review here: [3] and [4]. This is the general and reasonable standard.": I'm not disputing the standard. My question was to do with how much of the peer-review process was made available. Okay, you've provided one example, from one of the most prominent journals around, and therefore one that is most likely to come under scrutiny. What about, for example, the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington? I've searched their web-site and can't find anything equivalent. I've also arbitrarily selected the first four journals listed here (i.e. Cell, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Neuron, and Journal of Virology), and done a Google site search on them for "peer review" (in quotes). In the first three, the best I could find in the way of an explanation of their processes was that the second one mentioned that peer review is done by their 600 members. The fourth did have a more extensive explanation of the process ([7]). So including the PBSW, that's one out of five that I've looked at that "provide any access to information on the process". That hardly makes a case that the Journal of Creation is somehow different to the norm. Furthermore, you have indicated that Nature's policy is "the general...standard". And that's the point. Details can differ, but a peer-review process is a fairly standard thing, so given that the Journal of Creation is "peer reviewed", what reason is there to think that their process is somehow exceptional or needs special explanation?

Because they provide no details on it, only their bare claim that it is peer reviewed. This ALONE is highly exceptional and demands explanation. Their definition of "peer" can obviously be extremely loose, since they publish such a huge range of topics... a peer on the journal may just as well be a theologist as a biologist. All of the unusual things about the journal should lead to more clarity and precision, but instead they don't address these items at all. Very suspect for something that purports to be a "scientific journal" (as well as a philosophy journal, law journal, and so on).

As for your points on the other journals...

Three minutes: list of peer reviewers[8] and submission and criteria guidelines for PBSW[9]

Four minutes: for Cell [10] [11] among others

Thirty seconds: for JBC [12][13]

Neuron is published by Cell Press, so they share a page on the matter.

Thirty seconds: for JV [14] [15]

All of these are very, very easily available, as I think I have shown... I am not sure you really bothered to try ;). As opposed to the JoC's process, which is opaque, something highly unusual and suspect.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

It is not "highly exceptional", as I showed and will reinforce in a moment. With any peer review, it is expected that the paper will be reviewed by someone in that field, so the fact that they cover a range of fields does not in any way suggest that the papers will be reviewed by reviewers not competent in the fields of the papers concerned. You seem to be under the misapprehension that reviewers are always selected from among those who work for an organisation. This is simply not so. There is no cause for suspicion, except in your mind.

"Three minutes: list of peer reviewers[8] and submission and criteria guidelines for PBSW[9]": You really need to clarify exactly what it is that you are expecting. You claim was that the Journal of Creation "does not provide any access to information on the [peer review] process". You also acknowledged that they had "submission guidelines". Your second reference here for the PBSW is submission guidelines, not "information on the [peer review] process"! That one is NOT an example of what we were discussing. Furthermore, the first reference for the PBSW ("list of peer reviewers") is NOT a list of peer reviewers—it's a list of office holders! Strike 1.

"Four minutes: for Cell [10] [11] among others": The first is "Information for Authors" (akin to submission guidelines), NOT "information on the [peer review] process". The second is "Tutorial for Reviewers". This is closer, and might provide some information, but does not have things like how the reviewers are chosen, how many are used, etc., so is NOT really "information on the [peer review] process". Strike 2.

"Thirty seconds: for JBC [12][13]": These are "Editorial Policies,Practices and Guidelines" and "Instructions for Authors", and in neither case include "information on the [peer review] process". Strike 3.

"Neuron is published by Cell Press, so they share a page on the matter.": That was a strike out, so strike 4.

"Thirty seconds: for JV [14] [15]": Well, Duh! I said that this one did have information on their peer-review process. Your two links were the one link twice, and was to a "Guideline for reviewers". I believe that my link better fitted the description of "information on the [peer review] process" than yours did!

"All of these are very, very easily available, as I think I have shown... I am not sure you really bothered to try.: Well, given that (a) your results were NOT to "information on the [peer review] process" and one of mine was, I think I actually got better results than you. I told you that I did a Google site search for "peer review". I'd suggest that the reason I didn't turn up your links was because your links were not "information on the [peer review] process"!

"As opposed to the JoC's process, which is opaque, something highly unusual and suspect.": As I have AGAIN shown, JoC's process is no more opaque nor unusual than four of the five examples listed above. And there is no reason to consider them suspect.

Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"In point of fact, only a proportion of individuals who write for them are scientists...": And another proportion is scientists, so that's merely a red herring.

"...it is absurd to claim that any journal with scientists who submit to it must be "respected," or else the word would be obviously meaningless.": Your term was not "respected", but "respected among the scientific community". A journal that is not respected by the scientific community won't have scientists supporting it. The term, as used, is not meaningless at all.

The scientific community means the greater proportion of scientists. Very, very few scientists respect JoC (for good reason). Accordingly, it is not a widely respected journal. Your use of the term would mean that any journal at all with scientific publications would have to be a respected journal, but that is absurd. Some journals are more respected than others... Nature is much more respected than PBSW, for example. Longevity, prestige, exactness, and thoroughness are all part of what makes a journal respected. JoC fails on almost every count, and moreover its other highly unusual aspects (such as also being a philosophy journal and law journal) make that perfectly reasonable.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

So if some scientists are in a minority, then they are not actually considered part of the scientific community? How convenient! And bigoted.

Yes, it is not a widely-respected journal—for ideological reasons, not "good reasons".

"Your use of the term would mean that any journal at all with scientific publications would have to be a respected journal, but that is absurd.": Not really that absurd. Clearly, those scientists that contribute to it and most of the scientists who subscribe to it must respect it. So it is respected, among a small but non-trivial number of scientists. That fact that others don't respect it doesn't refute that it is respected. Your original claim was the blanket claim that "The journal is not respected among the scientific community". That is clearly absurd. If you had instead said that "the journal is not respected by the large majority of scientists", or, better still, "the journal is not respected among that large majority of scientists who reject creation", I would not have disputed you. But clearly those more accurate claims do not have the denigrating impact that you wanted to convey.

"Longevity, prestige, exactness, and thoroughness are all part of what makes a journal respected. JoC fails on almost every count...": So now you criticise it because of a lack of longevity! Wow, you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for criticisms! And you're also claiming that respect is based partly on "prestige"? Isn't that the same thing? Apart from that, yes, your remaining two points in that first sentence are correct, but incomplete, as they leave out "conforming to the ruling paradigm". That is the main reason that the Journal of Creation doesn't have wider respect. Your two valid points have not been demonstrated, merely asserted.

"...its other highly unusual aspects (such as also being a philosophy journal and law journal) make that perfectly reasonable.": Mere assertion.

Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"...the vast majority of the scientific community do not consider it to be a serious and valuable scientific publication": True (depending on how vast "vast" is), but the vast majority of the scientific community are committed materialists, and don't accept it for that reason. So this criticism is based on ideology, not methodology.

I am glad you have ceded that fact, since it goes a long way to supporting the above.

I strongly disagree that it is ideology that makes the JoC disrespected.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Yet you've not demonstrated any actual errors of methodology or fact in it. Merely different philosophies, purposes, etc., an unsubstantiated assertion of different peer review processes, and false assertions of being unlike other journals in not publishing information on it's peer-review processes. So nothing of substance, really. Yet it's clear that the ideologies are different. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"...there is a clear difference between a lobbying group dedicated to proselytizing a minority opinion...": They are a ministry, not a lobby group. And the "minority opinion" is not that minority. Isn't it something like half the American population don't believe that man evolved?

Ministry, lobby group... play with semantics however you want, but the fact remains that they push a specific agenda. And the American population is really not the population to discuss, is it? I will happily admit that something like half of America believes that. But a huge, overwhelming majority of biologists do.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Mainstream journals also push a specific agenda: naturalism and it's offspring, evolution. Why isn't the American population the population to discuss? Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"...and an enormously-respected institute of science which reflects the majority opinion of scientists.": Sure, there's a difference, but not one that you've demonstrated affects their scientific integrity.

I do not see how I have demonstrated that. Explicate.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

See above. You've not demonstrated errors of methodology, fact, etc.; Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"The Society's papers also reflect unanimous support for the theory of gravity, but it would seem absurd to claim that they were pro-gravity": They don't believe in gravity??? It only seems absurd because there's no disagreement about the existence of gravity, but there is about whether or not evolution has occurred. So again, an invalid comparison.

All right, I will reuse an earlier example for a more valid comparison. If a journal's papers reflect unanimous support for monospecial descent of homo sapiens, then that doesn't indicate they are pro-monospeciesm, does it? Particularly since now new research is overthrowing the huge majority opinion?--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

It most certainly does if there is a non-trivial support for an opposing point of view (at the time they are publishing just the one view). Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"If someone wrote an excellent and well-research scientific paper on intelligent design that drew clear conclusions that contradicted the reigning theories, it would be published immediately...": The evidence says otherwise, including your own reference to the Biological Society of Washington. Note that they don't say that they will ensure that any future ID papers submitted to them will be reviewed by an associate editor. Nor that they will make sure that they are properly peer reviewed. No, instead, they say that they endorse an AAAS resolution that says that ID is unscientific. In other words, it doesn't matter if they receive "an excellent and well-research scientific paper on intelligent design". They simply won't publish it anyway, because it's already been declared to be unscientific! And note that this is a resolution of the AAAS, not something unique to the BSW. So this likely applies to most other journals also. No, your claim, as so many others have made before you, is nothing but deception. As a columnist wrote:

Note the circularity: Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific.

And there's plenty of other examples of discrimination, a small sample of which is mentioned in suppression of alternatives to evolution (which is also where you'll find the reference for that quote).

In point of fact, the resolution "observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity," and the paper does not provide one either, so "the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings." Accordingly, the paper is not well-researched or methodologically sound by their standards, which is exactly what I was indicating.

The first thing I did in this argument was point out that an ID paper had been published, so I am happy to cede that. However, it was a shoddy paper that was only reviewed by an outgoing editor with an agenda to push, and was immediately decried by everyone else on the body of the journal publishing it. There may be other examples elsewhere, so I invite you to please show them to me.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

If the paper is "not well-researched or methodologically sound by their standards", how did it pass peer-review? No, that statement is a face-saving exercise, designed to distance themselves from the paper because of criticism for publishing it, but without saying anything of substance about the paper itself. And you have fallen for it. The statement in effect said that the paper didn't meet their standards because it was an ID paper, and not for any other reason, such as a further review of the paper.

You've not demonstrated that the paper was shoddy (beyond the official statement which rejects it because it's ID), and you've not demonstrated that Sternberg had an agenda to push. What agenda would a non-Intelligent Design person have for publishing an ID paper? I also don't believe that your statement about it being immediately decried is 100% correct. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"If you think that is not true, the onus of proof is clearly upon you to demonstrate otherwise": I have now done so.

Philip J. Rayment 07:10, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

That does not seem to be the case. That paper is derided as being scientifically untestable and untenable by the publishing body, and the normal peer-review process was not engaged upon. Please show me a well-researched and methodologically sound paper that has been rejected by a journal because of ideology. This should be easy, if it exists.--TomMoore 16:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I have demonstrated (again) that these statements of yours are incorrect. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

P.S. Recommended reading. Philip J. Rayment 10:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

The bottom line is that respected scientific journals like Nature, Science Etc., rely on strict high quality peer review to identify a well designed scientific study which tests a hypothesis. Unfortunately pseudo scientific journals like JOC are designed to just push an agenda. Just compare the impact factor of these journals. JOC does not even have an impact factor.--JBuscombe 17:02, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'd say that most journals have a very small impact factor. But I'd suggest that apart from the controversy over Sternberg, the Journal of Creation probably has a bigger impact that the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, for example. Sure, the JoC's "impact" is not that of journals such as Nature and Science, but as TomMoore said, they've been around for much longer, for one thing. Calling the JoC "pseudo scientific" is merely name-calling; it doesn't demonstrate anything of substance, and if name-calling is the best "argument" you can offer, you have no argument. The Journal of Creation is no more trying to push an agenda than are other pro-evolutionary publications. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I now see that I didn't spell it out in words of one syllable for you. So I will make it even clearer this time. This is entirely unnecessary, and nasty. Please try to be civil.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

As I said above, with the emphasis, Sternberg handled the review process himself. I also provided a quote that it was "properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists" (emphasis added this time). But he didn't do the reviewing himself. It was properly peer reviewed by three reviewers, and Sternberg was not one of the three. One of the links I gave you above has this information: "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." There was nothing wrong with the peer-review process. But even if the reviewers are in favour of the paper, the editor can still decide to not publish it for any reason. Sternberg decided before the reviews that it should be considered for publication, and decided after to review to go ahead with publishing, but did not discuss those decision with an associate editor. That appears to be what the BSW statement is referring to, but the peer-review process itself was done as normal. Are you still going to maintain that the paper was not properly peer-reviewed? I am terribly sorry, I must have misunderstood what you quoted. What I read was that Sternberg had claimed the paper was peer-reviewed by others but that he had refused to identify them. Would you please list the names of the peer-reviewers, so I can look at their qualifications myself? Since the paper was properly peer-reviewed, that should be fairly easy. I myself was going off the fairly clear statement "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor"... which seems kind of cut and dry as death for your claim the process was properly done.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I wrote: "It is also not true to say that the only peer reviewing was done by Sternberg. It is also not normally the case that the names of reviewers are published.". You replied, "You are incorrect. See above or the statement of the publisher:". Which of those two sentences am I incorrect about? As far as the first is concerned, I've answered that, that it was peer reviewed. As far as the second is concerned, the official statement says nothing about the names of reviewers being published. While looking at the available back issues leads me to believe I am still correct, I cannot prove it to you (they are not available for free online). So I will cede the point that perhaps others years have not had the names of reviewers being published, through inability to evidence.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I'm happy to drop the matter of Sternberg's claims, but you didn't answer my question in the paragraph before that, nor made any response to my counter-claim that the official statement says nothing about the names of the reviewers being published. Are you conceding that point? Addressed above.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Methodology is the correct term. What's not correct is bringing in things that are not to do with methodology. You have not refuted that the review process is of quality at all. All you have done is question biases and motives, not the process. Which you can't question, because you don't know how, or even if, it differs from that of other journals. I have written to CMI and asked them if they would publish details of their process to shut up critics like yourself. They are considering the request. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT) I can only assume that you are admitting that the methodology of their review process and the nature of it is not available, since you have written to them and they have to consider it. This is absurd for any journal that purports to be of scientific merit, and I believe you have just established my point considering all the comparisons I have provided with the other journals YOU selected.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

You say below that such a task should be easy, is such a paper exists. But this is not so. First, if it hasn't been published, how could I show you a copy? If such a paper existed, it would be widely, hugely disseminated over the internet. It would be held up as a glowing example of the evil bias, and Article A for the prosecution. Do you disagree that this would be the case?--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Second, if rejection is due to bias, the reviewers are not likely to admit that bias is the reason, or even see it as bias themselves. For example, if offered an ID paper, they will probably argue that it doesn't meet scientific standards (because ID is not considered scientific), not that they are rejecting it because it supports ID, as if they did that, they would be rightly condemned for their bias. So if I do show you such a paper, you can merely note that it was rejected for not meeting scientific standards (or whatever excuse was offered) and then claim that I haven't proved my point at all. I agree that such a publisher would not be likely to admit to bias. However, the paper's merit should be able to stand alone. See below.

If I do show you such a paper, it would be easy for you to similarly offer an excuse for refusal to publish. You ask for a "well-researched and sound" paper. But those requirements are value judgements, so you could easily claim for any paper I showed you that they are not sufficiently well researched, and therefore not sound. This is also true, and it would be a fairly common debate tactic. But I honestly believe everything I have said, and honestly believe that no such paper has ever been dismissed for ideological reasons. As an example, Michael Behe has had numerous papers published, including one on the flagellum that could be used as evidence for ID and against evolution, perhaps. If you provide such a paper, I will use what scientific training I possess (inadequate, although substantial) and the advice of colleagues in order to assess its worth. However, I remain satisfied that no such paper exists. If it did, the proselytizers of ID/creationism would be shouting it from the rooftops and shoving it in the faces of every newsmedia. It would be a publicity coup for those who argue that they are being repressed. I conclude that it is very likely, especially with what I know about scientific journals, that no such ideologically-persecuted paper exists. So show one to me.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Now none of this proves my point, of course. But it does demonstrate that you are wrong to claim that it should be easy for me to show you such a paper, and it does demonstrate that you have to look deeper than just looking at the stated reasons for rejection. I disagree on the former, as stated above, but agree to the latter, as stated above.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

But I can offer you an example. This paper was refused publication, as explained here. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT) Just to be clear: is this an example of a paper that is in support of intelligent design, is well-researched and methodologically sound, and has been rejected from the respected scientific journals because of ideology? I want to mention that details are very scanty on the last point in the article you link, and the paper itself lists the reasons not as ideology, but because the information is a rehashing of what was known... "However, Ewens and Crow rejected it from publication on the grounds that it is not sufficiently new or different from what was known by themselves and some of their colleagues in the 1970s." Further, I should also point out that the author holds only a Master's in Electrical Engineering... not reason to disqualify it, but that should probably be a note of warning before you hold this up as an example.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

It is not "highly exceptional", as I showed and will reinforce in a moment. With any peer review, it is expected that the paper will be reviewed by someone in that field, so the fact that they cover a range of fields does not in any way suggest that the papers will be reviewed by reviewers not competent in the fields of the papers concerned. You seem to be under the misapprehension that reviewers are always selected from among those who work for an organisation. This is simply not so. There is no cause for suspicion, except in your mind. You really need to clarify exactly what it is that you are expecting. You claim was that the Journal of Creation "does not provide any access to information on the [peer review] process". You also acknowledged that they had "submission guidelines". Your second reference here for the PBSW is submission guidelines, not "information on the [peer review] process"! That one is NOT an example of what we were discussing. Furthermore, the first reference for the PBSW ("list of peer reviewers") is NOT a list of peer reviewers—it's a list of office holders! Strike 1. The first is "Information for Authors" (akin to submission guidelines), NOT "information on the [peer review] process". The second is "Tutorial for Reviewers". This is closer, and might provide some information, but does not have things like how the reviewers are chosen, how many are used, etc., so is NOT really "information on the [peer review] process". Strike 2. These are "Editorial Policies,Practices and Guidelines" and "Instructions for Authors", and in neither case include "information on the [peer review] process". Strike 3. That was a strike out, so strike 4. Well, Duh! I said that this one did have information on their peer-review process. Your two links were the one link twice, and was to a "Guideline for reviewers". I believe that my link better fitted the description of "information on the [peer review] process" than yours did!

Well, given that (a) your results were NOT to "information on the [peer review] process" and one of mine was, I think I actually got better results than you.  I told you that I did a Google site search for "peer review".  I'd suggest that the reason I didn't turn up your links was because your links were not "information on the [peer review] process"!

I see the error of my ways with this whole line of argument... it is almost impossible to disprove to you that the JoC is methodologically transparent with peer review, especially since the JoC provides nothing against which we can compare any of these... they provide no information on the subject at all (I guess they have to consider it). If you are willing to turn a blind eye to that, it is hard for me to convince you otherwise. I cede the point.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

So if some scientists are in a minority, then they are not actually considered part of the scientific community? How convenient! And bigoted. "Bigoted?" Please explain. No, my conclusion would rather be that if a journal is respected by only a miniscule number of scientists, then it is not a respected scientific journal. This would seem to be fairly obvious, yet you are fighting it tooth and nail. To counterpoint, the reducto ad absurdum of your rule ("If any scientists support it, it must be a respected scientific journal") is Eugenics Today, a modern journal for eugenics. If it has three geologists working on it, your rule would hold that Eugenics Today is a respected scientific journal. I trust you can see why your rule, therefore, must be absurd.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it is not a widely-respected journal—for ideological reasons, not "good reasons". Ah, I am glad to see you admit that it is not widely-respected (no matter your hedge). I guess we can drop the whole above argument, then.

Not really that absurd. Clearly, those scientists that contribute to it and most of the scientists who subscribe to it must respect it. So it is respected, among a small but non-trivial number of scientists. That fact that others don't respect it doesn't refute that it is respected. Your original claim was the blanket claim that "The journal is not respected among the scientific community". That is clearly absurd. If you had instead said that "the journal is not respected by the large majority of scientists", or, better still, "the journal is not respected among that large majority of scientists who reject creation", I would not have disputed you. But clearly those more accurate claims do not have the denigrating impact that you wanted to convey. We can happily drop this line of argument, since you have admitted it is not a widely-respected journal. I will in turn happily admit that creationists do respect it.

So now you criticise it because of a lack of longevity! Wow, you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for criticisms! And you're also claiming that respect is based partly on "prestige"? Isn't that the same thing? Apart from that, yes, your remaining two points in that first sentence are correct, but incomplete, as they leave out "conforming to the ruling paradigm". That is the main reason that the Journal of Creation doesn't have wider respect. Your two valid points have not been demonstrated, merely asserted. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT) Longevity and prestige are not the same thing. Some long-running journals are more prestigious than others. But again, since you admit that the journal is not widely-respected, we can drop this. That was all I wanted to indicate.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

True (depending on how vast "vast" is), but the vast majority of the scientific community are committed materialists, and don't accept it for that reason. So this criticism is based on ideology, not methodology. I confess that I do not know how you are using "materialist." From everything I know of empirical science, any scientist is a "materialist." Would you please define your use for me?--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Yet you've not demonstrated any actual errors of methodology or fact in it. Merely different philosophies, purposes, etc., an unsubstantiated assertion of different peer review processes, and false assertions of being unlike other journals in not publishing information on it's peer-review processes. So nothing of substance, really. Yet it's clear that the ideologies are different. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT) Your ceding above means again I am happy to drop this.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Mainstream journals also push a specific agenda: naturalism and it's offspring, evolution. Why isn't the American population the population to discuss? Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT) Mainstream journals cater to scientists, so of course they cater to naturalists (do you mean biologists? I confess I don't understand some of your unusual jargon on the matter). And the American population doesn't read or submit to scientific journals (with obvious and exceedingly rare exceptions). Only a very small portion do... the population of scientists.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

It most certainly does if there is a non-trivial support for an opposing point of view (at the time they are publishing just the one view). Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT) Hahahha, yes, I agree enthusiastically!--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

If the paper is "not well-researched or methodologically sound by their standards", how did it pass peer-review? It didn't. Sternberg reviewed it as an associate editor, when he obviously should not have since he had a specific agenda (he's a fellow at the Discovery Institute or something similar). And he has not provided evidence on how it was reviewed otherwise.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

No, that statement is a face-saving exercise, designed to distance themselves from the paper because of criticism for publishing it, but without saying anything of substance about the paper itself. And you have fallen for it. The statement in effect said that the paper didn't meet their standards because it was an ID paper, and not for any other reason, such as a further review of the paper. It didn't meet their standards, as they say, because the central premise was nontestable. This nontestability means that it is very hard to write papers on the matter... you are mostly reduced to a literature review to attack evolution, rather than support your own theory.--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

You've not demonstrated that the paper was shoddy (beyond the official statement which rejects it because it's ID), and you've not demonstrated that Sternberg had an agenda to push. What agenda would a non-Intelligent Design person have for publishing an ID paper? I also don't believe that your statement about it being immediately decried is 100% correct. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT) Sternberg has an agenda. He works with the DI. And the journal published that statement to decry it, did they not?--TomMoore 16:03, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I have demonstrated (again) that these statements of yours are incorrect. Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 18 March 2008 (EDT) P.S. Recommended reading. Philip J. Rayment 10:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT) I have shown how you are once more in error on several points. But we have, I believe, agreed on a stipulated point we have arrived at: the Journal of Creation is not a widely-respected scientific journal, but is respected only by those who agree with its agenda. Is that a fair statement of what you ceded was true?

Sternberg specifically states that it was reviewed by three reviewers. He provides general details about them.[16]
The BSW president confirmed that the article was properly peer-reviewed: "Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]." "[17]
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel confirmed that Sternberg "complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists".

In return, you have argued that a sentence in the BSW's official statement contradicts this. The sentence is "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process."

However, this does not contradict any of the points above. It says that Sternberg handled the review process, not that he was the sole reviewer. That is, it was Sternberg, and not an associate editor, who selected and approached potential reviewers, sent the reviewers the paper, and received their responses. Having received the reviewers responses, Sternberg himself decided to go ahead and publish, without consulting an associate editor. So again, no associate editor was involved in reviewing whether or not the by-now-peer-reviewed paper should be published.

You have also demanded to know who the reviewers were. However, it is normal practice for reviewers to remain anonymous, so failure to provide the names of the reviewers is not grounds for any suspicion. I believe that it's true that some journals do list the reviewers who have reviewed papers for them over the year, but even in those cases, who reviewed what paper is not published, but kept secret.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel told Sternberg, "In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field." (my emphasis). Yet here you are demanding to know the names of the reviewers!

Philip J. Rayment 09:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

In point of fact, it is normal in the peer review process for an associate editor to review the paper. THAT is what that sentence means- someone on the staff of the journal who reviews it and its merits for inclusion in the journal. You have admitted and so has Sternberg that he did not do this, but instead decided that he should be the one to review it. Naturally, he had no problems with it. However, this bypasses the normal peer review process which demands that a neutral associate editor take part. Sternberg, as someone who was ideologically biased, should have recused himself. He failed to do so.

As for peer review, it is normal for the actual identity of those who peer review an article to remain secret, you are entirely correct. This is generally done so that the parties can be neutral and assess the article's merit. But again, Sternberg was the only one to handle the whole process, so he chose the reviewers. Normally this would not be a problem, but again - he had an agenda. It is not unreasonable, further, to suspect that he is embellishing the truth to some degree and want proof. Accordingly, suspicion is highly warranted for the article's merit.--TomMoore 12:57, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

When you say that it is "normal in the peer review process for an associate editor to review the paper", do you mean as one of the peer reviewers, or in some other sense? As far as I'm aware, it's not "normal" for one of the peer-reviewers to be an associate editor.

Secondly, although Sternberg admitted not referring it to an associate editor, he also claimed that it was not a requirement to do so. And the official statement merely says that it is "typical editorial practices", not that it was necessarily typical on that journal, let alone a requirement.

Thirdly, you are still ignoring the evidence from other parties (second and third bullet points above) that the peer review was done properly.

Your justification for trying to improperly ascertain the identities of the reviewers is itself based on the assumption that Sternberg did something to warrant suspicion, which has not been established. It also ignores that Roy McDiarmid reviewed the file and said that all was in order. So you have no grounds for being suspicious. Your argument amounts to saying, "I think he did something wrong, so it's up to him to prove he didn't". No, it's up to you to show that he did, and without that, expecting him to break confidences is improper.

I'll get to the agenda point below, but as far as this post of yours is concerned, it seems that your entire justification for suspicion is based on an unproven allegation of him having an agenda. Without that basis, your claims of it being reasonable to have suspicion, that he is embellishing the truth, etc. are meaningless. I'll tell you what this reminds me of: the anti-creationist group that reported a creationist group to the authorities for fraud. The authorities investigated and found no evidence of fraud, but in the meantime, the anti-creationist group made mileage of the fact that the creationist group were under investigation for fraud! In this case, it seems very much like making accusations about Sternberg then treating those unsubstantiated accusations as reason for suspicion.

Philip J. Rayment 05:04, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Information on peer review

I'm not sure where things stand on this. You said "I see the error of my ways with this whole line of argument." and "I cede the point.". However, you also said, "it is almost impossible to disprove to you that the JoC is methodologically transparent with peer review, especially since the JoC provides nothing against which we can compare any of these... they provide no information on the subject at all (I guess they have to consider it). If you are willing to turn a blind eye to that, it is hard for me to convince you otherwise.", which suggests that you have not actually acknowledged that you were wrong, but for some reason simply feel that you can no longer argue the point. So let's review matters.

You said that the Journal of Creation "...does not provide any access to information on the process [of peer review]"
In return, I asked "What access to information on the peer-review process do other journals normally provide?". My point, of course, was that there was nothing unusual about the JoC not publishing information on their peer-review process.
You responded by pointing out that Nature does publish such information.
I responded by pointing out that four of the five journals I looked up on the Internet do not provide such information. Therefore, I was correct in suggesting that there was nothing unusual in the JoC also not publishing such information.
You replied by alleging that the five journals all do publish such information, and provided links.
I pointed out that in every case, except the one which I had already pointed out published such information, you were in error, because your links were to things other than information on their peer-review process.

So are you actually admitting that your claims in point 6 above were wrong, and therefore that my implied claim in point 2 was correct, and therefore that your original claim in point 1 was irrelevant because this is common practice?

Philip J. Rayment 09:25, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

"I can only assume that you are admitting that the methodology of their review process and the nature of it is not available, since you have written to them and they have to consider it. This is absurd for any journal that purports to be of scientific merit, and I believe you have just established my point considering all the comparisons I have provided with the other journals YOU selected.": Your first sentence seems to assume that I asked them to send it to me. I did not do that. I suggested that they might like to publish it. And I've answered above, and you said that you ceded the point, that there is nothing unusual about journals not publishing information on their peer-review process, as four out of the five I looked at did not appear to do so either. Philip J. Rayment 10:59, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Because the JoC provides no information at all, what I cede is the fact that it is impossible to prove this point to you if you don't think that's unusual. I should have known it would be difficult to delve into the matter in such detail, since there would be myriad inconsistencies in policy from one journal to another.--TomMoore 13:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Wrong. Your claim was that the Journal of Creation did not provide information on it's peer-review process unlike other journals. I have clearly shown that their lack of information is not "unlike other journals". Why can't you admit that? Philip J. Rayment 05:07, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

A refused paper

I wrote:

This paper was refused publication, as explained here.

You responded:

"Just to be clear: is this an example of a paper that is in support of intelligent design, is well-researched and methodologically sound, and has been rejected from the respected scientific journals because of ideology? I want to mention that details are very scanty on the last point in the article you link, and the paper itself lists the reasons not as ideology, but because the information is a rehashing of what was known... "However, Ewens and Crow rejected it from publication on the grounds that it is not sufficiently new or different from what was known by themselves and some of their colleagues in the 1970s." "

It is an example of a paper that points out a problem in evolutionary theory. Yes, it is implicitly claimed to be well-researched and methodologically sound, as it passed peer review with the Journal of Creation (as well as being favourably reviewed by at least two other reviewers). And yes, the claim is clearly that it has been rejected because of ideology, or, more specifically, because it challenges evolution. Of course the rejecting journals didn't admit that it was because of ideology, but gave other reasons.

I was questioning because I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of all aspects of the paper's nature, before you held it up as a champion of the phenomena you are describing. What is your reason for assuming that this electrical engineer's paper must have been discarded because of ideology, rather than the stated and seemingly valid reasons given?--TomMoore 13:08, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

What's my reason? Because that's the thrust of part of this page.

"If such a paper existed, it would be widely, hugely disseminated over the internet. It would be held up as a glowing example of the evil bias, and Article A for the prosecution. Do you disagree that this would be the case?":

I do. Most such papers would have been submitted and rejected before the Internet was in wide use. These days, the authors of such papers know that it is a waste of time submitting them, so don't bother. Then there's also the matter that most such papers would be over the heads of most people, so they would have no idea whether or not the paper had merit.

Those papers would still exist, and as you just demonstrated with the above paper, IDers still try to submit things to journals. There is even a nice little story about that paper on the JoC website, as you pointed out. The only reason they aren't blowing the trumpets really loudly is because it really isn't a very good example of what you are describing.--TomMoore 13:08, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to know how you know why they aren't doing something. But apart from that, it was not me who proposed it as a "champion" of such papers, merely as an example. Philip J. Rayment 05:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

"However, I remain satisfied that no such paper exists. If it did, the proselytizers of ID/creationism would be shouting it from the rooftops and shoving it in the faces of every newsmedia. It would be a publicity coup for those who argue that they are being repressed.":

How much of the news media would take any notice? Most of them are also anti-creation and anti-ID. And to an extent, "shouting it from the rooftops" is just what the Journal of Creation did with the paper listed above.

Philip J. Rayment 10:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

The media is pro-controversy, generally speaking, since it makes them money. And there are numerous agencies that would be issuing press releases, interviews, and so on. The Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy" actually makes that as clear as could be, since their entire goal is media penetration.

Be serious now: take a step back and think about it. Do you honestly believe, knowing and having read as many "ministry" and lobbyist sites as are out there, and how many fervent fighters for the cause, that if someone wrote a truly excellent paper and it was rejected because of ideology... that we wouldn't have heard about it?--TomMoore 13:08, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Even more than pro-controversy, the media is anti-creation and anti-ID, so no, I don't expect that they would love to publicise the controversy. I know of a newspaper which had a raging controversy in its letter pages for weeks, before they published a pro-evolution article and ended the controversy (i.e. there was not one more letter published). Some time later, someone I know asked the letters editor of that paper why they didn't publish his (unrelated) letters on the topic, and was told that the topic was a non-issue (in total contradiction of the issue that it had been some time before). I also know that our government-owned media network here refuses to have creationists on its programs, but will have anti-creationists. They once had Eugenie Scott, and were discussing why it was proper to not allow both sides of the issue to be broadcast. (Actually, I ought to add that one to Suppression of alternatives to evolution.) Philip J. Rayment 05:25, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

P.S. I've added now added it, here. Philip J. Rayment 11:12, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Respect for journals

"...the reducto ad absurdum of your rule ("If any scientists support it, it must be a respected scientific journal") is Eugenics Today, a modern journal for eugenics. If it has three geologists working on it, your rule would hold that Eugenics Today is a respected scientific journal. I trust you can see why your rule, therefore, must be absurd.":

Despite your use of quotes, that is not what I said. I didn't say "any scientists", but "those scientists that contribute to it and most of the scientists who subscribe to it", and also referred to a "non-trivial number of scientists". I also didn't say anything about the scientists that work for it, and your comparison with a Eugenics journal with three scientists who's qualifications have nothing to do with geology is inapplicable.

Okay, a non-trivial number of scientists... we'll say that's, what, forty? Forty scientists who contribute to it and subscribe to it? Is that non-trivial?--TomMoore 13:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't have actual figures, but I'm sure that it would be significantly higher than that. I've just done a quick survey through two issues (19(3) and 20(1)), and counting anyone with some sort of scientific qualification, the first issue I checked (20(1)) had 12 scientists (at least; there were a few I couldn't determine, plus I didn't check the letters), whilst the other one had 16, 13 of which were different to the 12 of the other issue. So that's 25 in just two issues (with not a great deal of overlap, so a third issue would likely get close to the 40 mark, if not actually reach it), and that's only contributors, not subscribers. Philip J. Rayment 06:08, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

"We can happily drop this line of argument, since you have admitted it is not a widely-respected journal. I will in turn happily admit that creationists do respect it.": You have a deal if you admit that it is respected by creation scientists and not respected by evolution scientists.

I will do so.--TomMoore 13:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I wrote:

"So now you criticise it because of a lack of longevity! Wow, you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for criticisms! And you're also claiming that respect is based partly on "prestige"? Isn't that the same thing? "

You replied:

"Longevity and prestige are not the same thing.": My wording was ambiguous. When I asked, "Isn't that the same thing?", I was referring to respect, not longevity. You had said that prestige is one of the reasons for respect. I'm saying that prestige and respect (not longevity) are essentially the same thing.

Philip J. Rayment 10:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Prestige and respect are not the same thing, although they are closely related, I think. Regardless, I don't care. Whatever terms you think work... as I have throughout this debate, I am happy to cede to whatever choice of words will not bother you.--TomMoore 13:12, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

But again, it's not the choice of words that's at issue. You claimed that "Longevity, prestige, exactness, and thoroughness are all part of what makes a journal respected. JoC fails on almost every count...". Longevity can hardly be held against the Journal of Creation, prestige you're happy to concede is near enough to respect, so that can be discounted too. So that leaves your statement amounting to respect being based on exactness and thoroughness, and a claim that the JoC doesn't have those. Actually, you said it doesn't have most of those (and I'm sure you weren't conceding that it had longevity and prestige). But that it doesn't have exactness and thoroughness are simply unsubstantiated allegations, not facts. So really, you comment was of no substance at all, and the particular choice of words was not the issue. Philip J. Rayment 06:08, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

"Please try to be civil.": I do, but given that I had already provided enough information to show that the Meyer article was properly peer-reviewed, yet you still couldn't see it, I believe that my comment was justified.

You said "I now see that I didn't spell it out in words of one syllable for you." Even if you think I am so stupid that you have to do so, that was still quite a nasty thing to say. I am sorry you feel it was justified, but that is why I asked that we keep this civil. Please do so.--TomMoore 13:30, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

It was actually intended partly as an admission that I hadn't made it as clear as I could (but then I thought that I had made it sufficiently clear), but given that you've conceded a number of points, I'll withdraw the remark. Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

""Bigoted?" Please explain.": Making out that those parts of the scientific community that accept creation and/or intelligent design don't count as part of the scientific community.

I suppose that makes sense. But I did not do that intentionally, if it appears I did. There are some creationists, like Michael Behe, that are clearly scientists and worthy of respect (even if he did come off a fool during Kitzmiller, he has much of merit otherwise). Of course, there are others who do not. But as I clarified when I asked this question of you, I did not mean this in any case.--TomMoore 13:30, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

"I confess that I do not know how you are using "materialist." From everything I know of empirical science, any scientist is a "materialist." Would you please define your use for me?": A materialist is one who believes that matter is all that there is, i.e. there is no supernatural.

"Mainstream journals cater to scientists, so of course they cater to naturalists (do you mean biologists? I confess I don't understand some of your unusual jargon on the matter)": Naturalism is (at least roughly) synonymous with materialism; the natural world is all there is; there is no supernatural.

It is unusual to me for you to level "materialist" and "naturalist" against scientists as if it was an attack. Of course they are both of those things as you define them... how could an empiricist be otherwise? Science is conducted with that which we know, not that which we pray.--TomMoore 13:30, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

There is a difference between doing science within the bounds of materialism and believing that matter is all there is. Just as an archaeologist can determine from a stone tool that an intelligent being (i.e. a human) made the tool, without having the human to study, scientists can, in principle, determine that nature had an intelligent designer. And this is the point of ID, and one point of creationists. It is true that science must be materialistic in that it can't study the Designer, but that doesn't mean that it has to be materialistic in excluding considering the possibility of a Designer. Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I wrote:

"It most certainly does if there is a non-trivial support for an opposing point of view (at the time they are publishing just the one view)."

You replied:

"Hahahha, yes, I agree enthusiastically!".

So you agree that mainstream journals that only publish in favour of evolution and don't publish anything opposed, despite non-trivial support for opposing views, are therefore pro-evolution?

Nope. I just think that the documentary support for ID is trivial. :D --TomMoore 13:30, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

The support among scientists is non-trivial. The documentary support (i.e. published papers, I presume) may not be, but that's begging the question. Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

"Sternberg reviewed it as an associate editor, when he obviously should not have since he had a specific agenda (he's a fellow at the Discovery Institute or something similar). And he has not provided evidence on how it was reviewed otherwise": That he had a specific agenda is an opinion, nothing more, as far as I know. He's not listed as being a fellow at the Discovery Institute[18], and I can find no firm evidence that he ever was, nor that he believes in intelligent design. And even if he was a fellow, it doesn't mean that he had an agenda, and neither does it mean that he acted unprofessionally.

Even though he has a position on the staff of an organization whose stated purpose is to spread ID (the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, an affiliate of the DI, sorry), and even though he signed a statement provided by the DI which attacks evolution - "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", and even though he is on the editorial board of Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, a creation journal - you don't think he has an agenda? And if he has an agenda, then choosing himself as the associate editor to review as well as his choice of reviewers should be strongly suspected.--TomMoore 13:30, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Have you read this? This is nothing more than guilt by association. For all I know, similar applies to the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. Evolutionists have claimed that many of the scientists signing the Scientific Dissent are not actually opposed to evolution, but simply "have doubts" about some part of it (that's from memory, not a direct quote). But here you use it as evidence that he's opposed to evolution. You can't have it both ways. But the real point is, none of his associations necessarily mean that he had "an underlying ... ideological plan or program" (Merriam Webster), that he had an ulterior motive for his actions. That is nothing but scurrilous supposition on your part. Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

"It didn't meet their standards, as they say, because the central premise was nontestable.": What central premise? ID? Yet you deceitfully claimed that an ID paper would be accepted if it was well written.

I want to cut this one off right at the pass: I am not try to deceive you or anyone else here. Do not start accusing me doing so. If I make a mistake, it is an intellectually honest mistake.

As to your point, you are correct: a well-written ID paper would be accepted. I am giving ID the benefit of the doubt by assuming it is testable. Meyer had no testable proposition in his paper since it was a literature review, and the journal believes there is none possible. I am assuming ID proponents are not lying when they say it is testable, although it is quite beyond me how that could be. But since it may be the case, yes, a well-written and methodologically sound (a concept which includes testability) paper would be accepted.--TomMoore 13:30, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I can accept that perhaps you believe that a well-written ID paper would be accepted, but do you actually believe that ID is capable of being scientific? If you don't, then your claim that a well-written ID paper is deception. If you can accept that ID is capable of being scientific but that a well-written paper hasn't been produced yet, then I'll accept that you are not being deceptive. Just naive. This is because a large proportion of the scientific community considers ID to be by its very nature unscientific. And if you do think that ID can be scientific, why is it that despite all the scientists who do believe in it, there's yet to be a well-written paper about it (according to you)? Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

I wrote:

"I also don't believe that your statement about it being immediately decried is 100% correct.":

You replied:

"Sternberg has an agenda. He works with the DI. And the journal published that statement to decry it, did they not?"

The agenda bit's already been answered. I think they only decried it after outside people started criticising them for it.

Philip J. Rayment 10:57, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

See the above on the agenda. And according to Skeptic Magazine, there were rumblings immediately when the paper was submitted. I know you won't consider that a good source, so never mind.--TomMoore 13:30, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

The glaring weakness includes ascribing ulterior motives based on one's alleged faith or lack thereof is not science. Intelligent Design is simply creationism dressed up and this is evident in the debate between young earth proponents and old earth intelligent design subscribers. The idea of a young earth has absolutely no evidence to support it by any measure that is scientifically accepted be it carbon dating or any other decay measure. It is truly perplexing to see the ID crowd dismiss so many scientific tools as wrong, which, if true, means all fields of science are essentially false so why even bother going to the doctor. The rigidity and insistence that all science conform to Genesis's version of creation is the fatal flaw of creationism as no science is valid if it refuses to accept an outcome that is contrary to an expected finding. The saddest part of the creationism debate is the constant drum beat of comparisons of anti-creationists to Hitler, Nazis, Soviet gulags and other evil events of human history. This is simply an effort to dehumanize and when that is achieved one can perform unspeakable acts with no twinge of conscience. When creationists finally recognize their confusion with worship of the Bible as opposed to a personal understanding of God, they will finally be free. It is this lack of self examination and the lack of use of the God given gift of reason that is so distressing. The very fact that all posts must meet a preordained religious criteria is an affront for the search for truth. This dehumanization has made Americans quite comfortable in tolerating slavery, bigotry, segregation, genocide of the American Indian, repeated bombing and incineration of other nationals and a prison system second to none in the world. The difference between Hitler and so called religious folks is indistinguishable as both pursued their ends with religious fervor, claiming all means justify their ends. To be so casual as to dismiss some parts of the Bible as being metaphor and others as the cold, hard facts is evidence enough of a flawed methodology. If creationists want to be taken seriously they need to start utilizing the tools of science and work as scientists. Until then, they are just theologians who have run out religious explanations and have delved into the material world at random, desperately clutching for any straw to prop a very shaky faith that, if with question or doubt, will destroy their sense of self identity.

Debate:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?

From Conservapedia

Contents

Peer review of Meyer's paper

Information on peer review

A refused paper

Respect for journals

Miscellaneous

Views

Personal tools

Search

Popular Links

Help

World History

Edit Console