Home » Peer review » “Intelligent design theorists don’t publish in peer reviewed journals”

“Intelligent design theorists don’t publish in peer reviewed journals”

Daniel Dennett: “ID proponents don’t publish in peer-reviewed journals and they don’t make verifiable predictions.” (January 17, 2006, January 17, 2006)

Ewen Callaway: “Peer review changes nothing for intelligent design (New Scientist, 21 August 2009)

Dave Gamble: “There is indeed a claim that there are credible peer-reviews papers that support ID, but when looked at, all we find are incandescent vapors and reflective materials …” (Skeptical Science, February 20, 2011)

Incidentally: An updated list of ID papers in peer reviewed journals

Here.

These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.

Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves — and is receiving — serious consideration by the scientific community.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

15 Responses to “Intelligent design theorists don’t publish in peer reviewed journals”

  1. I love the contradiction between Dennett and Callaway: one says that they don’t publish, and the other claims that even though they do publish, it doesn’t matter.

    That is weapons-grade stupid right there.

  2. Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.

    It’s good to know that after 200 years, ID theorists are tending to agree with each other on this.

  3. How shocking that people appearing to have some kind of affiliation with science should publish such easily falsifiable, outright lies. Or could it really be simple ignorance?

  4. Daniel Dennet, Ewan Callaway, Dave Gamble. What a sorry trio!

  5. Well, it’s not a very impressive list of publications. By far and away the most common journal is Bio-complexity which is specifically devoted to ID research.

    A lot of the rest are in conference proceedings, and may or may not be peer-reviewed (or may be minimally so – in my experience, conference abstracts receive minimal review). And a few in low-impact factor general journals, although of those, most seem to be not actually particularly pro-ID.

    So if you want to make the argument that ID is being kept out of decent journals, then there is still one to be made.

    But peer-review is at at least a start. Next goal: citations. Have at it :)

    But to be serious: the big problem as I see it with ID publications is not that they aren’t peer-reviewed, or even that they appear only in specialist ID or low impact factor journals. Some Nobel prize winners (one I know directly) have trouble getting their Nobel-winning work into a decent journal when it first appears. It’s that the publications are so poor.

    I’m going to be very rude, and say that I have not yet read an ID paper that has not been a combination of bad (and often obfuscatory) math and wishful thinking.

    If IDists really want to make an impact on science, they need to test actual ID hypotheses (like front-loading) and aim for proper high-impact factor journals with rigorous peer-review. If the work is validly done, it will be published. But it needs to be good science.

    If it is, it’ll probably get into Nature, and be really really exciting.

  6. It’s the old ‘damned if you do damned if you don’t’ problem.
    It’s the same lame excuses darwinists use to dismiss the possibility of GOD from the start, then claim there’s no evidence that points to a Creator.

  7. No it isn’t.

    And darwinists don’t “dismiss the possibility of GOD from the start”.

    And no evidence for a creator doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

  8. Here you go Elizabeth a cartoon just for you:

    The Atheist Doctor
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRQzQpnYhKI

  9. You can lead an atheist to evidence but you cant make him think.

  10. kuartus, :)

    of note:

    Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

    “Descartes said ‘I think, therefore I am.’ My bet is that God replied, ‘I am, therefore think.’”
    Art Battson – Access Research Group

  11. Elizabeth,

    If evos really want to make an impact on science they need to test actual stochastic hypotheses and aim for proper high-impact factor journals with rigorous peer-review. If the work is validly done, it will be published. But it needs to be good science.

    But fisrt they need to actually produce testable hypotheses…

  12. Agreed, Joe.

    Done and dusted.

  13. What’s done? We are still waiting for a testable hypothesis wrt stochastic processes.

  14. What’s done? We are still waiting for a testable hypothesis wrt stochastic processes.

    What’s that then, Joe? That stochastic processes exist? Demonstrably true. That they cause things to happen? That, too. That they can lead to change? Mmmm-hmmm. Tell me – as someone who routinely asserts that “ID is not anti-evolution” – are stochastic processes involved in the evolution that you are not anti?

    You have this bizarre habit of defending ID by attacking evolution (the thing it is not anti), in a rather ill-focussed manner.

  15. No Chas, you are confused as I do not attack “evolution”, rather I attack the nonsensical claim that unplanned, unguided, stochastic processes didit.

    And strangely enough neither you nor any other evo can produce any evidence to support your position.

    I take it that bothers you.

Leave a Reply