Aydin Ã–rstan is a biologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pensylvania. From his blog, Snail's Tales, he runs Circus of the Spineless, a carnival featuring posts about invertebrates. For this edition of the Circus, I submitted my post, The problem with model invertebrates, which pointed to some problems with using fruit flies and nematodes as model organisms, citing data published in the scientific journal Current Biology.
Much to my disappointment, Ã–rstan turned it down. Not because I was too late in submitting it (I submitted it almost two weeks ago), and not because of its actual content. No, Ã–rstan's problem was with the source of my post. As he writes, at the end of the current Circus:
My policy on this blog is not to have any links in any of my posts to any creationist (including "intelligent" design) sites. Hence I turned down a submission from one such site. I offer no apologies.
Ã–rstan did not spend any time justifying his label "creationist". In fact, as anyone reading my post would notice, it explicitly relies on the common ancestry of humans, insects, worms, and corals.
Now, I don't presume to tell Ã–rstan which posts to feature. It's his blog, and he can use any crazy criteria he likes. But let's look closer at the mindset of this sample of the biological community: He thinks intelligent design is creationism, and he thinks material from ID supporters should be rejected as a matter of policy.
Is this one of the "peers" that will be performing the "peer review" of an eventual ID research paper?
Update November 1st: The manual trackback I left at Snail's Tales has been deleted.