Sahotra Sarkar, peer reviewer
by KrauzeSahotra Sarkar is a biologist at the University of Texas, who recently debated ID supporter Paul Nelson. Here's the impression that one person in the audience got:
I was really happy with the way Sahotra started the debate. He spent ~2 of his first 15 minutes emphasizing that the reason we're here talking about ID isn't that it's actually a scientific viewpoint anyone seriously respects. He likened IDers to flat-earthers and Raelians, saying the only reason we were debating ID was that more political power had gotten behind that view than the other crazy views. He specifically mentioned the ID movement's funding from Howard Ahmanson, who apparently wants to turn America into a theocracy.
So, intelligent design supporters are like flat-earthers, and they want to turn America into a theocracy. I wonder how Sahotra Sarkar would react, should he some day be asked to review a research article supporting intelligent design?
For more on Sarkar's fears about the Coming Theocracy, see here.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Well, it was nice to see that Nelson is honest in his assessment of ID as a science.
Comment by derwood — March 15, 2006 @ 11:47 am
March 15th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Hi Derwood,
"Well, it was nice to see that Nelson is honest in his assessment of ID as a science."
The fact that there is no scientific theory of intelligent design has been acknowledged by the writers of this blog for a long time.
Comment by Krauze — March 15, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
March 16th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Krauze:
Indeed. The key point is, and always has been, the implications of equating ID with a theocracy. If a reviewer says, "While I may not agree with this, the case is supported sufficiently for further consideration, thus I vote to publish/award," then hasn't that reviewer just helped to bring about the theocracy? I realize many would rather sweep this thought under the rug, but that's an anti-scientific approach to a question about the real world.
Comment by MikeGene — March 16, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
March 20th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
I'm sure he will be happy to review it. When do you anticipate the first one will be published?
Comment by ctborum — March 20, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 8:39 am
ctborum:
of course he would be happy to review it. but that isn't the issue. the issue is the approach he would take to reviewing it.
if postively reviewing an article on intelligent design is the same as supporting a theocracy, then we have to wonder whether Sahotra Sarkar would be able to approach the review of this hypothetical paper from the standpoint of a reviewer with options. would he really have options, or would the fact that a positive review supports the theocrats narrow his options down to one: rejection without clarification.
Comment by bipod — March 21, 2006 @ 8:39 am
March 21st, 2006 at 8:42 am
Hi Ctborum,
"I'm sure he will be happy to review it."
An article supporting the equivalent of flat-earthism, from someone who wants to turn America into a theocracy?
"When do you anticipate the first one will be published?"
It's a hypothetical. Play along.
Comment by Krauze — March 21, 2006 @ 8:42 am
March 21st, 2006 at 3:44 pm
That's my point. A "research article supporting intelligent design" has and it appears will always be only a hypothetical, since no discernible research is currently going on or planned. Or even described, for that matter.
Comment by ctborum — March 21, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
March 21st, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Hi Ctborum,
"A "research article supporting intelligent design" has and it appears will always be only a hypothetical, since no discernible research is currently going on or planned. Or even described, for that matter."
Big deal. In 1859, the same could have been said about experiments showing natural selection in action.
Now, suppose that at some point in the future, a bright young researcher does the undoable and submits a research paper whose conclusions support intelligent design. How do you think it would fare, were it to be reviewed by Dr. Sarkar?
Comment by Krauze — March 21, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:21 pm
No, but by 1875 you couldn't. It has been more than 15 years since Phillip Johnson, et al, 'created' intelligent design, and things are no different now than they were then. Followers of Darwin and Whitehead didn't use the courts, opinion polls, or the voting booth to convince others they had a good idea, they used their labs. Try it sometime, maybe, and when that paper comes out we'll just have to see what the response is. But we'll never know until that bright young researcher comes along.
Comment by ctborum — March 22, 2006 @ 11:21 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:23 pm
But that still misses the point. If Sarkar gave such a paper (or more importantly, grant proposal) a positive review, wouldn't he be helping to bring about a theocracy?
Comment by MikeGene — March 22, 2006 @ 11:23 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:31 pm
If the paper was legitimately about science and not about religion, then no. But no such paper can or will ever be written.
Comment by ctborum — March 22, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:34 pm
But if it was legitimately about science, wouldn't Sarkar be helping science to give the theocracy its stamp of approval?
Comment by MikeGene — March 22, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Now you are missing the point. If the paper was about science, it is no longer representative of the contingent that wants to make America a theocracy, so if Sarkar reviewed it positively he would only be recognizing the legitimacy of the science therein contained. Theocrats are not interested in science. And again, a paper in support of ID is by its very nature not about science and all about religion.
Comment by ctborum — March 22, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:44 pm
I see. So if Sarkar helps to get an ID-related paper published, what makes you think the theocrats will not hail this as a reason to promote their theocracy? What do you think the theocrats will do with the Sarkar-endorsed ID paper at the local school boards?
Comment by MikeGene — March 22, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:48 pm
My assumption is that Sarkar would not give a good review to an ID positive paper, unless the science were sound, and those two conditions are incompatible.
Comment by ctborum — March 22, 2006 @ 11:48 pm
March 22nd, 2006 at 11:56 pm
But that gets us nowhere. Sarkar has to make a judgment call about the paper being "sound." He must know that if he judges it "sound", he is handing a powerful weapon into the hands of the eager and eevil theocrats. Sarkar may try, oh-so-hard, to be objective, but the science of psychology tells us that ain't possible. Sarkar is, in the end, only human. And he's a human who worries about theocracies (the only reason he bothers with this issue).
And that leaves us with the question of the night - what type of data does Sarkar need in order to support the local theocracy-movement?
Comment by MikeGene — March 22, 2006 @ 11:56 pm