"That being said, I think Dr Orstan has every right to apply any standard for acceptance he pleases. It's his blog, after all."

Sure. As I wrote: "Now, I don't presume to tell Örstan which posts to feature. It's his blog, and he can use any crazy criteria he likes."

"However, to assume that he would apply the same standard as a referee for a journal is unwarranted, in my opinion. That is calling his scientific integrity into question based purely on his policy regarding a blog."

What is of concern isn't some scientist's policy in handling his personal blog, but the mindset that he displayed in the process. The evidence suggests that Dr. Örstan is relying on stereotypes when reacting to ID, to the point that he labels a post relying on humans and other metazoans having descended from corals as "creationist". Those are characteristics of the Dr. Örstan who leaves his computer to put on his lab coat.

Is it possible that when entering his laboratory, Örstan locks all of his prejudices and stereotypes about ID into a separate compartment of his mind, and becomes ready to objectively weigh an eventual ID paper? Sure, anything is possible. However, there is no evidence that suggests this, and it would run counter to what we know about scientists as human beings, relying on simplified conceptions about unfamiliar territories of reality.

I too think you have missed the point of Krauze's concern. The actual article he submitted had little to do with ID, if taken at face value. The only reason it was rejected, as was admitted by the blog owner, was that it came from an ID or creationistr oriented site. Its scientific merit was not even at issue.

That being said, I think Dr Orstan has every right to apply any standard for acceptance he pleases. It's his blog, after all. However, to assume that he would apply the same standard as a referee for a journal is unwarranted, in my opinion. That is calling his scientific integrity into question based purely on his policy regarding a blog. Hardly enough evidence to justify smearing him like that, regardless of how cavalierly he handled Krauze's submission.

KC

Krauze writes an essay that argues our model organisms have provided a skewed perspective on evolution. He briefly discusses a recent paper where "The authors concluded that gene loss had been a substantial factor in evolution, and that "the ancestral metazoan is likely to have been much more complex than was previously imagined." So he appropriately notes that this supports a trend he has blogged about previously "“ "The machinery found in higher organisms is turning out to be way older than anyone expected." He then follows with a prediction.

There is nothing "creationist" about his essay. It is not anti-evolutionary. Nor does it invoke any divine intervention. Again, this is not an opinion of mine; it's a simple fact that follows from basic skills in reading comprehension.

Yet note how the scientist from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pensylvania responded. In a purely knee-jerk fashion, he labels it "˜creationist,' thus declares it is "rubbish", and accordingly turns Krauze away. There is not a scrap of evidence to indicate that Dr. Örstan read the blog, let alone understood the argument.

What is of interest in not some petty argument about being "censored," but the clear illustration of a scientific mind that closes in Pavlovian fashion and then locks shut with simple-minded stereotypes.

The lesson is clear "“ even a modest, restrained, and supported evolutionary argument as presented by Krauze will be reflexively dismissed and labeled rather than considered in an open and fair-minded fashion. The power of stereotype was on glorious display.

But anyway, your position seems to be that anything coming from a pro-ID blog is unscientific and therefore shouldn't be part of a scientific Circus (not that the Circus of the Spineless requires that something be scientific or even educational - they'd accept a story about or a picture of an invertebrate, for Pete's sake - that in itself is enough for me to claim that whether or not ID is scientific is beside the point). The only thing I'm not certain about in all of this is whether you are committing a circumstantial ad hom fallacy or a guilt by association fallacy in arguing this.

I didn't mean it to be rude.

Thanks for not being rude.

I think part of the problem here is that when people have very different opinions, it can take a while to get to the point where each person thoroughly understands what the other person is saying and why he is saying it.

Mr. Orstan has a policy of not accepting any post whatsoever from a pro-ID blog, whether the post is about ID or not, whether the post is scientific or not. That's the problem.

That would be a problem, only if Intelligent Design were a scientific theory.

Let's say, hypothetically speaking, someone from a pro-ID blog submits a scientific post to Mr. Orstan's blog or carnival.

Presumably Mr. Pro-ID is submitting this scientific post in order to initiate a debate about ID. Mr. Pro-ID is very likely submitting this scientific post in order to lead whatever discussion Mr. Orstan is having away from science and towards a non-scientific topic (the non-scientific topic of Intelligent Design).

Now this is the point where you would probably want to object that Intelligent Design is in fact a theory that could be considered a scientific theory. And if you are correct, then Mr. Orstan would be rejecting out of hand a theory that could be scientific.

But you see, your objection is based on the alleged fact that Intelligent Design could be a scientific theory. The status of ID as science or not science has a direct bearing on whether Mr. Orstan wants to link to Mr. Pro-ID.

Moreover, not only is Mr. Orstan convinced that ID is not science — Krauze himself says the same thing! Granted, Krauze wants Intelligent Design theory to develop into a scientific theory, but he admits and asserts that it has not yet reached that point.

More-moreover, it is not clear to me how Krauze's wishes for ID theory are going to be realized if the proponents of ID theory are reluctant to encourage a full-throated debate about the merits of their theory. That is why it is not clear to me why "Meeting of Minds" should be limited to non-critical posts. Are pro-ID'ers demanding to be heard on scientists' sites, while maintaining a protective bubble around their own carnivals? It is not clear to me how to resolve this apparent double standard.

Thank you, Macht, for your thoughtful response. While I can't agree with you that I "just haven't engaged anything [you've] said", I can understand your frustration at my dogged refusal to agree with you.

Maybe by the time this comment thread ends, we will both have good feelings about our respective positions.

Cheers,
Matthew

You seem almost willing to admit this when you say,"I don't think there is anything about ID that disqualifies it from being scientific." But for some reason, you feel compelled to backtrack and insist (in your last two comments), "it is entirely beside the point as to whether ID is scientific or not."

I don't know why you say I'm backtracking. When I said "I don't think there is anything about ID that disqualifies it from being scientific" I said so because that's what I think. When I said "it is entirely beside the point as to whether ID is scientific or not" it's because it is beside the point. Those two sentences really have nothing to do with each other. The former was an answer I gave to a question you asked (which really had nothing to do with the discussion). The latter is just a fact about this whole situation.

"Furthermore, if Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, then Krauze should not decline to link to critical posts in Meeting of Minds."

Uuuugggggghhhh! Re-read my last post.

Why? Because he is a scientitst with a science blog and a science carnival.

Then he should reject each individual post based on whether it is scientific or not. He should reject a post because he has some policy about who wrote the post or what blog the post came from. It's as simple as that.

Why are you asking a rude question?

I didn't mean it to be rude. I'm literally asking if what I'm saying is so hard to understand. I thought I explained it clearly but you aren't understanding. Both carnivals have a purpose, a reason for existing. If a blog post doesn't fit in with that purpose, of course the host site can reject the post. But if they reject the post based on some rule about where or who the post comes from, then that's ridiculous.

And I don't think you've done anything offensive, you just haven't engaged anything I've said. You haven't commented at all on the purposes of the carnivals.

You are criticizing Mr. Orstan for not linking to Intelligent Design posts or blogs. Since Mr. Orstan's blog and carnival are both about science, a very strong and reasonable basis for your criticism would be if Intelligent Design were supposed to be a scientific theory.

You seem almost willing to admit this when you say,"I don't think there is anything about ID that disqualifies it from being scientific." But for some reason, you feel compelled to backtrack and insist (in your last two comments), "it is entirely beside the point as to whether ID is scientific or not."

Macht, it is not entirely beside the point as to whether ID is scientific or not. That is precisely the point.

If ID is scientific, then Mr. Orstan should link to it and discuss it. If ID is not scientific, then Mr. Orstan should feel no obligation to link to it or discuss it. Why? Because he is a scientitst with a science blog and a science carnival.

Furthermore, if Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, then Krauze should not decline to link to critical posts in Meeting of Minds. If Intelligent Design is supposed to be science, then Krauze should welcome and encourage critical posts. That is how science advances.

Is this so hard to understand?

Why are you asking a rude question?

Are you being defensive, or have I written something offensive?

I don't think there is anything about ID that disqualifies it from being scientific.

If yes, then why exclude posts that are critical from Meeting of the Minds?

The same reason you would exclude posts about vertabrates from the Circus of the Spineless - because that's not the point of Meeting of the Minds. Is this so hard to understand?

But why dismiss my comments by characterizing them as "entirely beside the point"?

Because it is entirely beside the point as to whether ID is scientific or not. If you had a carnival called "Intelligent Design - is it scientific or not?" then you might have a point.

Whether ID is scientific seems entirely beside the point.

Do you think Intelligent Design is scientific?

If yes, then why exclude posts that are critical from Meeting of the Minds?

If no, then why submit ID posts to a science blog?

Bonus question: I understand that you disagree with me, you have made that very clear. But why dismiss my comments by characterizing them as "entirely beside the point"