Faith Well Grounded

ID scientists have often been disparaged here by commenter(s) because of their lack of peer review. The subject was a major part of yesterday's post, so I thought I'd continue the theme and let one of the founding scientist/authors of ID speak to it, in his own words. The material I will be quoting can be found on Michael Behe's author's page at arn.org (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm. It's fairly dated, but that shouldn't affect the subject matter at all. I ask the reader to go there and read Behe’s take on the exchange, for what I plan to do is quote the exchange and editorialize my views.)

So, one of the arguments has been that ID scientists aren't scientists because they are not peer reviewed. Another version of the argument is that we shouldn't pay attention to their work because such work is written for popular consumption and hasn't been through the peer review process/hasn't been properly referenced/etc... (You can see such an argument made or alluded to in the comments of this post. It was formally introduced in the comments of this post. )

Not being a scientist, I’m not sure exactly what “properly referenced” would entail, but every work I’ve read has been diligently referenced—as example, “Darwin’s Black Box” is reference by chapter in closing, “Genetic Entropy” by Sanford is inline referenced (and I believe referenced at the conclusion of the book), “In the Beginning was Information” by Gitt was referenced in conclusion, listed alphabetically…

As to the peer review, it has been my response that by and large the Evolutionary establishment, which by definition comprises the “established” scientific community, refused to accept, publish or review papers or works on such topics. So, it’s a catch-22, in that, you apparently aren’t part of the scientific community if you aren’t peer reviewed, but you aren’t peer reviewed if you aren’t part of the “accepted” (evolutionary) scientific community.

Yesterday’s blog sought to show Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” as peer reviewed, which isn’t a contradiction to today’s subject, because even what peer review he did get is now “disclaimered” that it wasn’t really peer review. Today, I’ll merely quote Behe’s correspondence (in part) while seeking peer review and an audience to defend himself.

[The following is an email from the editor of the journal.]
Subject: Re: inquiry about submission
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:21:54 0500
From: [the editor]
To: "Michael J. Behe"
Hi Mike,
I'm torn by your request to submit a (thoughtful) response to critics of your non-evolutionary theory for the origin of complexity. On the one hand I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive. But on the other hand we have fixed page limits for each month's issue, and there are many more good submissions than we can accept. So, your unorthodox theory would have to displace something that would be extending the current paradigm.
What I would suggest you do is to write something quite short--a letter--that would fit in, say, three pages or so of [the journal]. Then, if your letter is sufficiently provocative and lively, I might have an easier time convincing the other editors of its worth.

[The following the editor's response to my letter]
July 12, 1999
Dear Dr. Behe,
Because of the controversial nature of your letter to [this journal], and concern about whether it would be appropriate for a scientific journal, I asked a senior [journal] advisor to take a look at your submission. As you will see, the accompanying review identifies many apparent flaws in your arguments, and also questions the basic premise of your arguments, that complex systems cannot be dissected to reveal individual components' roles. I concur with this reviewer's sentiment: complex systems are being unraveled!
So, I am going to take the liberty as Editor not to seek additional reviews, and deny the request to have your letter published in [this journal]. I would like to encourage you to seek new evidence for your views, but of course, that evidence would likely fall outside of the scientific paradigm, or would basically be denials of conventional explanations. You are in for some tough sledding.
Sincerely,
[The editor]

[Emphasis mine]

Anyone catch that? Behe challenges the current paradigm, so any evidence he presents will likely fall on deaf ears and thus go unnoticed, and Behe will likely find no takers to publish his work as “peer reviewed”. And since the “senior advisor’s” opinion so heavily influenced this decision, surely he pointed out the mountains of scientific evidence that Behe missed. Luckily, the senior advisor’s response is attached on Behe’s site.

And, you know what? My post has gotten entirely too long. Tune in next time for the senior advisor’sreview / excuse not to publish, and Behe’s response to the review, as sent to the journal (which this too obviously never got published…)

For now, let’s end with the new knowledge of the scientific process at work, as admitted by the journal editor:

“…I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy...”

Tune in next time, and we’ll see all of the science that “identifies many apparent flaws in your arguments, and also questions the basic premise of your arguments”. Surely, that what the response will be based on, right?

Science?...

Technorati Tags: Evolution Naturalism Science Michael Behe