Evil Darwinists Attempt to Ban The Truth of Intelligent Design

Unsurprisingly, the cry of “censorship!” has gone up now scientists have dared to respond to Stephen Meyers’ 26-page academic paper in support of Intelligent Design. According to Agape Press:

A pro-Darwin lobbying group is being accused of trying to censor a published and peer-reviewed scientific article that deals favorably with the theory of intelligent design.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) claims the article by Dr. Stephen Meyer is “substandard science” and should not have been published by the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

Clearly, such “claims” amount to a call for ID literature to be banned.

Proceedings is a journal that ordinarily deals in descriptions of new species. Meyer specialises in history and philosophy of science at Cambridge University, although he also has a background in geophysics. Since the article’s appearance in August, biologists at The Panda’s Thumb, Pharyngula,  and elsewhere have been offering critiques and raising questions about the review process: questions that have led the board associated with the journal to also make critical remarks. Now Dr John West, associate director of the Discovery Institute‘s Center for Science and Culture (CSC) and Meyer have responded to Agape reporters:

Dr. John West…says the NCSE has flip-flopped just like a politician.

Oh, I wonder if he has any particular politician in mind? But let us proceed:

“The refrain of Darwinists up till this point has been intelligent design isn’t science because its proponents don’t publish peer-reviewed articles,” West says. “That has always been false; in fact, scientists have been publishing peer-reviewed articles about their ideas on intelligent design.” Now, however, he says the scientists who want to exclude intelligent design and promote Darwinist science cannot ignore West’s paper, because it has appeared in “a very standard, peer-reviewed biology journal.”

Eh? Have they been publishing in peer-reviewed journals before or not? Seems West is making two contradictory statements (a flip-flop?). What’s more:

The Biological Society of Washington has distanced itself from the article and from [Richard] Sternberg [the editor of the journal], accusing him of bad judgment. Meanwhile, a recent report in Nature describes Proceedings as a “low-impact journal” and quotes a Brown University biologist as saying “peer review isn’t a guarantee of accuracy.”

Dr. Meyer himself has noted the double standard being applied to his article. “Until a few days ago,” he says, “Darwinists have argued that intelligent design isn’t science because it hasn’t been published in peer-reviewed journals. But now that an increasing number of scientists are making their case for design in scientific publications, Darwinists are ready to disown peer review — temporarily, I’m sure.”

Actually, the review piece in The Panda’s Thumb (by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry) hardly “disowns” peer review or dismisses the paper:

We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal, a mere fifteen years after the publication of the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, a textbook aimed at inserting ID into public schools. It is gratifying to see the ID movement finally attempt to make their case to the only scientifically relevant group, professional biologists. This is therefore the beginning (not the end) of the review process for ID. Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile. Only through this route — convincing the scientific community, a route already taken by plate tectonics, endosymbiosis, and other revolutionary scientific ideas — can ID earn a legitimate place in textbooks.

Apparently, such sentiments are in fact a call for ID to be “censored” by Darwinian fundamentalists…

However, Meyer and his editor Sternberg have another complaint that Agape declines to mention, but is noted in an article in The Scientist, and reported via WorldNetDaily (where Meyer has previously published):

Sternberg told the journal he and Meyer have falsely been labeled creationists by the scientific community, noting: “It’s fascinating how the ‘creationist’ label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community.”…

“Dr. Meyer is a well-known proponent of intelligent design and that is what his paper is about,” Crowther told The Scientist. “To try and characterize him as a creationist is just an attempt to stigmatize him and marginalize his paper, all the while avoiding the scientific issues that it raises.”

2 Responses

  1. […] God or some kind of alien?), this cannot be accused of being religion. Although ID has only so far produced one peer-reviewed scientific article (and that under questionable circumstances), the Creationists use […]

  2. […] noted previously, many advocates of Intelligent Design (ID) reject the term “Creationist”, which they […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *