::::::::: (removed false and baseless claim by Argon about sponsorship of this site)
==Draft of PNAS Letters Response from Conservapedia==
: Looks like we need to start trimming, then. Intelligent suggestions are welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
==Science is self-correcting by nature==
Very interesting to see all of this. As a researcher myself, I care very much about the nature of research, research methods, science, and scientific communication. Without spending any time to support or criticize Lenski, I would like to think that some here have noticed that this controversy is potentially no different from critiques of methods and conclusions that have abounded in scientific discourse for many decades, with one significant difference. Usually, methods or conclusions are criticized by other scientists whose own research has shown potential deficiencies in published research. While in some fields, there can be some kind of political or academic/cultural agenda that drives criticisms, such corrections/suggestions are usually purely technical in nature. Like some other contributors to this "talk" page, I have frequently seen letters with corrections or comments about articles or other research reports. Even more satisfying and in the true scientific spirit are subsequent articles or studies (sometimes by the same author who wrote the flawed study) that fill in gaps, correct methodological errors, and generally contribute to the body of knowledge of the given subject. I don't see the latter happening here, though. Science is cumulative. What is the motivation behind the criticism of the Lenski study? Is it by a fellow scientist who cares about methodologies used to investigate this topic? Or by a specialist who is also working in this area and also hopes to advance knowledge? No, it seems rather to be an attempt by non-scientists (who, given the stated philosophy of Conservapedia, likely espouse a belief in Biblical Creationism) to discredit the scientific work of a specialist. This seems to be done, not in order to advance scientific knowledge of evolution (of bacteria in this case), but rather to disprove evolution. If the criticisms have any validity, by all means let them be known; however, I would think that sound scientific complaints would carry more weight coming from a peer (a scientist) in the same field, rather than from Biblical Absolutists, who (correct me if I'm wrong here!) believe in scientific progress and methods only insofar as they do not contradict the Bible. Nevertheless, scientific communication is open to all serious participants and if there are sufficiently sound scientific arguments to legitimately correct or carry forward the findings of Lenski, then by all means let such comments contribute to the evolutionary nature that is science! If the arguments aren't sound, then of course they won't contribute to knowledge of the subject and will not warrant serious discussion anywhere. If this journal (PNAS) is like some others, the editors will provide the criticized author with an opportunity to respond and of course an opportunity (that all researchers have) for the authors of the critique to correct or supplement the work with their own research in a peer-reviewed study of their own on the same topic. I wonder, though, if the editor or editorial board will seriously consider the criticisms if 1) they find them to lack substance or 2) believe that the motivation of the critique is not related to scientific inquiry. The National Academy of Sciences is one of the most highly-regarded academic institutions in the world and its PNAS, being very highly cited, is extremely visible. I always read the "Letters" and other sections and look forward to see what happens with this. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)