The Peer Reviewers Speak
by MikeGeneA member of the Secular Movement contacted the Chairs of various biology departments to confirm there is no "controversy" to teach. No problem there. But what's interesting is that he also captures the perception of ID among those who would peer review any hypothesis related to ID. Keep these words in mind the next time someone demands that an ID hypothesis/experiment be published in the peer-reviewed literature:
The faculty in my department variously regard the ID crowd as insane, ignorant, dangerous, or the butt of jokes. Among our group, ID is considered a not-so-subtle cover for Christian fundamentalist creationism. - Stuart Dryer
However, of all of these, no one seriously considers "intelligent design" as an honest alternative. I will go further. Proponents of intelligent design have displayed an inordinate level of intellectual dishonesty. - Vincent M. Cassone
All see ID as religion and it does not meet the criteria of science. It is viewed as unintelligent to discuss the two together. Since they are based on different methodologies that are not compatible by any intellectual measure. ID is religion and should be discussed in that vein. - Earl D. Mitchell Jr.
But the message is always the same–ID is not a scientific approach to the origin of species.
- A.P. Wheeler
No one feels that intelligent design can be considered "scientific" or should be taught in the science classroom. - Rob McClung
There is no sense in which "Intelligent Design" is science - as logic, it is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, a material fallacy, and there is no associated experimental program or testable hypothesis. - Elliot Meyerowitz
"Intelligent design" is viewed as a religious and social discussion, not a matter of science. - Robert H. Jones
This question has been discussed several times amongst my faculty and I can respond definitively that 100% of the faculty in my department (26 persons) support the theory of evolution and not a single person considers ID a legitimate scientific concept. - Dan Bush
February 26th, 2006 at 5:52 am
Hi Mike,
Wow, what a coincidence! I was also considering writing about that article, although from a different angle. Yep, those words should be remembered by any prospective ID researcher.
Comment by Krauze — February 26, 2006 @ 5:52 am
February 26th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Amazing. The biology professors say things like "ID is not a scientific approach to the origin of species", yet the "origin of species" involves issues and evidence which is not subject to being scientifically tested within an Evolutionary paradigm in any case. All Evolutionists have when it comes to theorizing about the "origin of species" is "just-so" stories, conjecture, unjustified extrapolation, and "it's the best theory we've got" argumentation. But, woe to ID if it doesn't do any better than Evolution in explaining the "origin of species". (Note, of course, that "origin of species" logically requires "origin of life".)
Comment by Douglas — February 26, 2006 @ 11:32 am
February 26th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
When Dennett said, "You may want to try to extricate yourself, since you are certainly losing ground fast in the evolutionary community that I am in touch with. As you will see, I do lump your coinage in with "˜reductionism" and "scientism" etc. and think you are doing a disservice to the cause of taking science seriously," Ruse replied, "Now don't be grumpy "“ "You may want to try to extricate yourself, since you are certainly losing ground fast in the evolutionary community that I am in touch with." "” I am a full professor with tenure at a university known chiefly for its prowess on the football field, living out my retirement years in the sunshine "“ I have no reputation to preserve, and frankly can say and do whatever the f**k I want to without sinking further."
Now, Ruse is not religious, has a long track record of fighting creationism, and is a fully tenured professor. But what would it be like if Ruse was a theistic evolutionist, no history of fighting creationism, and an assistant professor waiting for tenure? Would he still have written the same book about the history of creationism and evolution?
On the other hand, Dennett has a new book that relies on evolutionary psychology that attempts to explain (away?) religion as a natural phenomenon. If Dennett was a new face waiting for tenure, would this book have put his career in jeopardy?
One must wonder to what degree peer pressure influences the world described by academia. Unfortunately, as far as I know, science doesn't study this question. Maybe peer pressure has something to do with that too.
Comment by MikeGene — February 26, 2006 @ 12:36 pm