I agree that the author of the blog referenced is not-so-subtly trying to tar Behe with the Judge's comments about the defendants, but look at his perspective. It's an atheist blog, so he lumps the ID/Creationists together. I'm not saying it's OK, just not entirely unexpected.
We all generalize to some degree. Creationists do so when they claim that all evolutionary scientists are secular atheists, which causes them to hang on to such a "ridiculous" theory. That's an insult to the countless theist scientists.
Indeed, YOU are generalizing a bit with this post, by picking out a single blog and using it to discredit anyone who takes issue with Behe's testimony. I can show you several similar blog posts that lack any mention of the blatant lies by the defendants.
You aren't dealing much with the issue at hand. Behe (a scientist himself, remember) claimed under oath that his book underwent peer-review that was even more rigorous that that of scientific journal articles. He caimed 5 reviewers, but one of those was a 10 minute phone conversation with a guy who'd NEVER READ the book. Ergo, there were NOT 5 reviewers.
Of the 4 left, we only know about 3. Two of those raised many objections to evidence presented in the book, and the third was marginally supportive.
Does "peer review" mean that everyone must glowingly praise the work and agree with the findings?
No, but the process is designed to ensure accuracy of the arguments presented. If a reviewer takes issue with facts claimed, the author must at the very least clarify the statements to the satisfaction of the reviewers. There is no indication that Behe changed his book at all in response to the reviews, as the objections raised are still applicable.
My question to you is, what do you think "peer-review" means? Does it mean that we've let some knowledgable people read this book, submit their feedback, and summarily ignore it? If so, what's the point?
The bottom line is that book review by a publisher is a completely different process than peer-review for a refereed journal. Publishers are mainly concerned with marketability of a work. They generally don't care if a book is accurate, as long as it sells. Scientific journals are about accuracy and discovery. New and speculative ideas are presented all the time. The ideas don't always pan out, but the review process helps ensure the supporting data is at least accurate and applied properly.
Um... It was peer reviewed at the time.
The term "peer-reviewed" is understood to describe the academic process associated with journal articles. Attaching that term to Behe's book suggests one of two things: ignorance or dishonesty.
You knew this would wake me up, right?
I agree that the author of the blog referenced is not-so-subtly trying to tar Behe with the Judge's comments about the defendants, but look at his perspective. It's an atheist blog, so he lumps the ID/Creationists together. I'm not saying it's OK, just not entirely unexpected.
We all generalize to some degree. Creationists do so when they claim that all evolutionary scientists are secular atheists, which causes them to hang on to such a "ridiculous" theory. That's an insult to the countless theist scientists.
Indeed, YOU are generalizing a bit with this post, by picking out a single blog and using it to discredit anyone who takes issue with Behe's testimony. I can show you several similar blog posts that lack any mention of the blatant lies by the defendants.
You aren't dealing much with the issue at hand. Behe (a scientist himself, remember) claimed under oath that his book underwent peer-review that was even more rigorous that that of scientific journal articles. He caimed 5 reviewers, but one of those was a 10 minute phone conversation with a guy who'd NEVER READ the book. Ergo, there were NOT 5 reviewers.
Of the 4 left, we only know about 3. Two of those raised many objections to evidence presented in the book, and the third was marginally supportive.
Does "peer review" mean that everyone must glowingly praise the work and agree with the findings?
No, but the process is designed to ensure accuracy of the arguments presented. If a reviewer takes issue with facts claimed, the author must at the very least clarify the statements to the satisfaction of the reviewers. There is no indication that Behe changed his book at all in response to the reviews, as the objections raised are still applicable.
My question to you is, what do you think "peer-review" means? Does it mean that we've let some knowledgable people read this book, submit their feedback, and summarily ignore it? If so, what's the point?
The bottom line is that book review by a publisher is a completely different process than peer-review for a refereed journal. Publishers are mainly concerned with marketability of a work. They generally don't care if a book is accurate, as long as it sells. Scientific journals are about accuracy and discovery. New and speculative ideas are presented all the time. The ideas don't always pan out, but the review process helps ensure the supporting data is at least accurate and applied properly.
Um... It was peer reviewed at the time.
The term "peer-reviewed" is understood to describe the academic process associated with journal articles. Attaching that term to Behe's book suggests one of two things: ignorance or dishonesty.