nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Suppression of alternatives to evolution (view source)
Revision as of 15:21, November 15, 2007
, 15:21, November 15, 2007Sort of agree re: Hutton; dont' really agree about peer review
:Something that should also be pointed out is what exactly is peer review? From my understanding and experience peer review means that the research is subjected to review by experts in the field the research falls under. This is often mistaken by laypeople to mean research that has been reviewed by other scientists. As a biochemist it would do no good for me to have my research reviewed by an environmental biologist when the research deals with ATP pathways for chemo taxation. Even though an environmental biologist may know what chemo taxation is it in no way means they are an expert, nor have the authority to review research outside of their field of study. I think ID would be better served if they did not try to fall under the biological sciences, because the only people available to peer review them are evolutionary developmental biologists since they are the scientific experts of developmental biology at this time.
:Something that should also be pointed out is what exactly is peer review? From my understanding and experience peer review means that the research is subjected to review by experts in the field the research falls under. This is often mistaken by laypeople to mean research that has been reviewed by other scientists. As a biochemist it would do no good for me to have my research reviewed by an environmental biologist when the research deals with ATP pathways for chemo taxation. Even though an environmental biologist may know what chemo taxation is it in no way means they are an expert, nor have the authority to review research outside of their field of study. I think ID would be better served if they did not try to fall under the biological sciences, because the only people available to peer review them are evolutionary developmental biologists since they are the scientific experts of developmental biology at this time.
:On last thing before I head off to work is the question of their research papers not being accepted by peer review journals. I would think they could use their own resources, Discovery Institute for example, to publish their scientific research. I must say however that while this seems simple to me I have yet to see any research articles that are of hard sciencetific experimentation come from any ID researchers. Most if not all of their papers are more about theological debate and of no real scientific application and experimentation. If this would change I am pretty sure that we would see a change of view in the scientific community.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:47, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:On last thing before I head off to work is the question of their research papers not being accepted by peer review journals. I would think they could use their own resources, Discovery Institute for example, to publish their scientific research. I must say however that while this seems simple to me I have yet to see any research articles that are of hard sciencetific experimentation come from any ID researchers. Most if not all of their papers are more about theological debate and of no real scientific application and experimentation. If this would change I am pretty sure that we would see a change of view in the scientific community.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:47, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::I agree to a fair extent with your first paragraph about Hutton, but with a couple of exceptions:
::* Even after Hutton there was not reason to question the biblical timescale, as Hutton put forward a new (anti-biblical) way of ''viewing'' the evidence, not contrary evidence.
::* Although Hutton managed to destroy belief in the biblical timescale, and thereby set the scene for Darwin, most scientists still held to special creation until Darwin popularised his theory. So while they may not have been young-Earth creationists, they were still creationists.
:: I'm not disputing that "most" scientists accept evolution, including in the biological sciences, but my point is that the dissenting minority, though small in percentage terms, is still too large to simply be dismissed, as so often happens.
:: However, I do dispute your comparison between the testability of ID and evolution. ID proponents claim that their idea ''is'' testable, and I've seen little argument (despite plenty of claims) that it's not. Furthermore, the case for evolution being testable is grossly overstated. See [[Falsifiability of evolution]].
:: You may be correct to claim that IDers have not shown genetic ''changes'' caused by a designer, but they ''have'' shown that a designer is the only reasonable explanation for the genetic ''design'' that exists. Incidentally, as a creationist, I'm don't go along with ID in the sense of not identifying the designer, and point out that creationists have been using intelligent-design type arguments for long before there was an Intelligent Design movement.
:: Your claims about peer review are wrong, in an absolute sense at least, because there ''are'' other biologists who are not evolutionists who are capable of peer reviewing. Perhaps not many, and that might limit the possibilities a bit, but it's not out of the question. Nevertheless, I note your implicit acknowledgement that an evolutionist is going to reject an ID paper on the basis of his belief in evolution rather than on the quality of the ID paper.
:: I don't know a lot about the Discovery Institute, but the Journal of Creation and the Creation Research Society Quarterly are two peer-reviewed journals that cater for creationists (and publish ID-type papers also), so in that sense your suggestion is already happening. The Journal of Creation (which I read, so I'm most familiar with) covers the whole gamut of creationism, including theology, geology, and biology, and it certainly includes original scientific research. Yet where is the "change of view in the scientific community"? On the contrary, what I find so often is that evolutionists reject these peer-review publications as invalid, simply because they are creationist! And keep in mind that funding for creationist and ID research is virtually non-existent, so you shouldn't expect to see too much of it.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 15 November 2007 (EST)