1,106
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: − − − So, you see, Behe did indeed contribute to the selection of "peer reviewers". However, even among those he suggested to the editor there were those whom did not agree to review the text. If one reads further into the transcript, one will find that "several" of the reviewers disagreed with Behe's claims and approach. Also, what passed for "peer review" for the editor of Behe's book amounted to nothing more than a 10 minute phone conversation with someone known to the editor, through his wife, to be aligned with particular Christian religious beliefs. This "reviewer" had in fact not even read the book. − − It would be prudent for those wishing to read a full account of the case to visit the source link below and other related transcripts. Among other exchanges in the conversation quoted above, one will find the following question from the Plantiffs' attorney and Behe's reply: − − Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct? − − A. That is correct, yes. − − − For a transcript of the decision of Judge John E. Jones III, a known conservative appointed by George W. Bush, see: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf − − Among his findings, the Republican Judge found: − − "ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science."
reverting back, way to POV and non-encyclopedic to salvage
:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.
:A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.
----
----
'''Sources:''' <references/>
'''Sources:''' <references/>