1,410
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: − +
→Opinions on the Smithsonian Controversy: Somebody else had added that when my contribution was rejected elsewhere....it was of course mischaracterizing Klinghoffer's words. Now corrected.
=== Opinions on the Smithsonian Controversy ===
=== Opinions on the Smithsonian Controversy ===
Critics of intelligent design have long argued that it is unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, anti-Intelligent Design scientists have retaliated against the managing editor who managed the peer review process on the grounds that intelligent design is "pseudoscience".<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Klinghoffer 2005]]</ref> In a [[Wall Street Journal]] op-ed article, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Discovery Institute Fellows]</ref> portrayed Sternberg as a martyr and victim of discrimination,<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 The Branding of a Heretic] David Klinghoffer. OpinionJournal, January 28.</ref> a tactic used often by intelligent design proponents.<ref>"The "persecuted scientist against the establishment" hoax. Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas."[http://www.jci.org/cgi/reprint/116/5/1134.pdf Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action] Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. (10226K PDF file) </ref>
Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in schools have long argued that it is unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that an intelligent design proponent has published a paper in a peer reviewed journal, Smithsonian scientists have retaliated against the managing editor who managed the peer review process on the grounds that intelligent design is "pseudoscience". David Klinghoffer noted in a Wall Street Journal editorial: "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."<ref>[[Smithsonian_Controversy#Sources|Klinghoffer 2005]]</ref>
== References ==
== References ==