Introducing New ID-Relevant Peer-Reviewed Journal: BIO-Complexity

_{William Dembski

May 1, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Check out this new ID-relevant [“ID-friendly” is too strong — ID proponents will get no preferential treatment] peer-reviewed journal: BIO-Complexity. The Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evoinfo.org) has an article under submission there.

BIO-Complexity

Editor in Chief

Matti Leisola, Enzymology and Enzyme Engineering; Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

Editorial Board

David Abel, Origin of Life; The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, United States

Douglas Axe, Protein Structure–Function; Biologic Institute, United States

William Basener, Statistics and Population Modeling; Rochester Institute of Technology, United States

Michael Behe, Biochemistry and Biological Complexity; Lehigh University, United States

Walter Bradley, Origin of Life; Baylor University, United States

Stuart Burgess, Biomimetics and Biomechanics; University of Bristol, United Kingdom

Russell Carlson, Biochemistry; University of Georgia, United States

William Dembski, Mathematics and Information Theory; Discovery Institute, United States

Marcos Eberlin, Chemistry; State University of Campinas, Brazil

Charles Garner, Prebiotic Chemistry; Baylor University, United States

Loren Haarsma, Biophysics; Calvin College, United States

Peter Imming, Organic Chemistry; Martin Luther University, Germany

James Keener, Bioengineering and Mathematics; University of Utah, United States

David Keller, Biophysical Chemistry and Molecular Machines; University of New Mexico, United States

Branko Kozulic, Biochemistry; Gentius Ltd, Croatia

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Plant Genetics; Max Plank Institute for Plant Breeding Research (retired), Germany

Jed Macosko, Biophysics and Molecular Machines; Wake Forest University, United States

Robert Marks, Evolutionary Computing and Information Theory; Baylor University, United States

Norman Nevin, Medical Genetics; Queen’s University of Belfast (emeritus), Ireland

Edward Peltzer, Ocean Chemistry, United States

Colin Reeves, Genetic Algorithms and Information Theory; Coventry University, United Kingdom

Siegfried Scherer, Microbial Ecology; Technische Universität München, Germany

Ralph Seelke, Microbiology; University of Wisconsin-Superior, United States

David Snoke, Physics and Modeling; University of Pittsburgh, United States

Richard Sternberg, Genomics, Cladistics and Theoretical Biology; Biologic Institute, United States

Scott Turner, Physiology, Ecology and Evolution; State University of New York-Syracuse, United States

Jiří Vácha, Pathological Physiology and Evolutionary Theory; Masaryk University (emeritus), Czech Republic

John Walton, Chemistry; University of St Andrews, United Kingdom

Jonathan Wells, Cell and Developmental Biology; Biologic Institute, United States

Comments

I personally would like to encourage Allen MacNeil to present an anti-ID paper to the new journal. I would be thrilled if he would tackle the issues he himself has raised, to wit: At one point he tells us that DNA does indeed contain meaningful information recorded within the sequences of its nucleobases. And then he tells us that all meaningful information is first the product of perception. It would then be very intersting to know why we cannot infer that the meaningful information which gave rise to life was not the product of perception. Perhaps he can take a moment from writing his pro-Darwin book to provide this most-interesting answer. In fact, it might even seem that the book would be incomplete without it.Upright BiPed_{May 2, 2010
May
05
May
2
02
2010
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

I love the idea that papers denying ID will be reviewed. Now all those extremely well-versed authors which do not feel the need to misrepresent ID positions in order to attack them will have a place to post their findings and defeat the theory; those that do not claim victory by a mere change in calculated probabilities from 10^77 down to 10^52 will finally see the light of day; those that deal directly with the evidence without recourse to just-so stories can -at last- have their criticisms heard. Yah! (cough)Upright BiPed_{May 2, 2010
May
05
May
2
02
2010
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

I don't really see why it's necessary to analyze this word by word. It's quite obvious that what is meant is that this journal will be publishing pro-ID papers at the very least.Phaedros_{May 2, 2010
May
05
May
2
02
2010
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

ShawnBoy, You're probably correct that this was the intended definition. However, I wanted to point out what the journal says about itself and its policies. From my understanding (which could be mistaken), content both for and against ID will be published. Critiques of pro-ID articles are specifically requested (see the journal policies section linked above.) Also see Doug Axe's post here: http://biologicinstitute.org/2010/04/30/the-debate-over-design-gains-momentum-with-a-new-peer-reviewed-science-journal-bio-complexity/
This contest of ideas, this rigorous exchange, is precisely how science is meant to work. And that’s exactly what BIO-Complexity is about. Unlike most science journals, this one is founded on critical scientific exchange. That commitment began with an inclusive approach to recruiting scientists to serve as editors. As one of the people involved in the process, I can assure you that whatever the Editorial Board [2] ends up looking like when all the replies are in, the invitations went out to everyone we could think of with the expertise and the interest to make a useful contribution, regardless of their perspective on ID. Inevitably some will have been overlooked, and these too will be welcome later additions, pending board approval.
pelagius, Obviously many of the board members are ID friendly if not outright ID advocates and no doubt many will complain about this. According to Doug's blog post, invitations were sent out to people with a wide variety of views on ID. Perhaps the current editorial board composition is a product of self-selection? (With pro-ID invitees being more likely to accept an invitation to become an editor of a journal not hostile to ID.) AtomAtom_{May 2, 2010
May
05
May
2
02
2010
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Friendly | Define Friendly at Dictionary.com The fourth definition...
not hostile or at variance; amicable: a friendly warship; friendly natives.
I'm sure that's the meaning Dr. Dembski was aiming for. pelagius, Darwin ideologues' refusal to take biology into the 21st century shouldn't prevent progress from being made by those scientists who aren't terrified of modern science.ShawnBoy_{May 2, 2010
May
05
May
2
02
2010
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Atom, Given the makeup of the editorial board, I think it is safe to say that this journal will be very ID-friendly.pelagius_{May 2, 2010
May
05
May
2
02
2010
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

NZer, The links accompanying the people's names are opened via javascript on the Bio-complexity site. Hence, why they won't work here. AtomAtom_{May 2, 2010
May
05
May
2
02
2010
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, From my understanding the journal will be ID-agnostic, not ID-friendly. (See first line above.) Purpose and Scope
To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work. Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind. Our editors use expert peer review, guided by their own judgement, to decide whether submitted work merits consideration and critique. BIO-Complexity aims not merely to publish work that meets this standard, but also to provide expert critical commentary on it.
(emphasis mine) Although the journal will focus on testing concepts of ID (and will feature critiques of the published pro-ID papers), I don't think it is correct to say it is an ID-friendly journal. It is simply a journal dealing with ID, with content that is both for and against the idea. Just that fact that a journal allows for papers presenting ID findings is, I guess, enough to make us feel it is ID friendly. Friendly, of course, is a relative term when journal editors hostile to ID abound. AtomAtom_{May 2, 2010
May
05
May
2
02
2010
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

The Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evoinfo.org) has an article under submission there. Great news! I'm looking forward to it.DiEb_{May 2, 2010
May
05
May
2
02
2010
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

Is it just my Mac, or are the links above not working?NZer_{May 2, 2010
May
05
May
2
02
2010
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

Congratulations on the launch! I look forward to reading the articles.nullasalus_{May 1, 2010
May
05
May
1
01
2010
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

Excellent development. Rest assured, though, that militant atheist sleazes will simply claim that it is not a peer reviewed peer reviewed journal.Matteo_{May 1, 2010
May
05
May
1
01
2010
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

What do you suppose the reaction of the scientific community will be? It will certainly be interesting to see the reaction of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, or even the National Association of Biology Teachers. Similarly, I look forward to comments in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Science, Nature, Cell or Genetics. Does anyone know if Bio-Complexity has applied for listing in the Science Citation Index?PaulBurnett_{May 1, 2010
May
05
May
1
01
2010
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Wow, this looks great, a really big step forward for the biological sciences! Congratulations to everyone involved, looks like a stellar editorial board!Granville Sewell_{May 1, 2010
May
05
May
1
01
2010
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Wonderful news Dr. Dembski,,, I can already here the refrain from the materialists though,,, "Well it is not a "real" peer review article since it was not reviewed by an "evolutionist"". Their code word for a "peer" who uncritically, and unwaveringly, accepts Darwinian evolution to be absolutely true for all of life no matter what the evidence says.bornagain77_{May 1, 2010
May
05
May
1
01
2010
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

This is incredible! :)Phaedros_{May 1, 2010
May
05
May
1
01
2010
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Editor in Chief

Editorial Board

Leave a Reply