Darwinism Intelligent Design News Peer review

Peer review: No need to get basic ID concepts right, when discussing ID

Spread the love

From Religious Beliefs, Evolutionary Psychiatry, and Mental Health in America, Volume 1 of the series Religion, Spirituality and Health: A Social Scientific Approach pp 49-54 at Springer:

Reactions to Darwin’s Origin of Species by Kevin J. Flannelly, Abstract: The chapter describes the initial reaction of the British general public to the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, the immediate and later reactions of the scientific community, and the 20th Century response of Conservative Christians in the U.S. The British public had a generally favorable reaction to Origin of Species when it was first published, and it has been said that the British public widely accepted that the theory of evolution was true within a decade of the book’s publication. As the chapter explains, Darwin’s “theory of descent with modification” was widely accepted among scientists in Britain and the U.S. by the 1870s, but many biologists were not convinced that Darwin’s “theory of Natural Selection” was the mechanism of evolution until the early 20th Century, when the field of genetics showed that individual characteristics were expressed through and transmitted by genes and that random mutations in genes could produce significant changes in genetic characteristics upon which Natural Selection could act. The chapter also describes that most Christian denominations came to accept the theory of evolution, but strong objections to the theory arose among Conservative Christians in America in the early 1920s. Their objection to the concept of evolution, which is predicated on their literal interpretation of the description of God’s creation of the world in the Book of Genesis, has been expressed in educational movements in the U.S. that oppose the teaching of evolution in the public schools, including “Creation Science” and “Intelligent Design.” More.

For something like this to still be in peer-reviewed literature

Their objection to the concept of evolution, which is predicated on their literal interpretation of the description of God’s creation of the world in the Book of Genesis, has been expressed in educational movements in the U.S. that oppose the teaching of evolution in the public schools, including “Creation Science” and “Intelligent Design.”

without reviewer cavil shows how necessarily insulation from current events has become to Darwinian biology in an era when we need to reflect on what we are all learning.

Briefly, design is not creation. No good school system would wish to graduate students who cannot tell the difference.

ID does not derive from the Book of Genesis but some things that are funded as “science” apparently do not require homework.  Neither group opposes the teaching of evolution but both have serious problems wth the way it is being taught now, which includes zombie icons from decades ago.

On the other hand, peer review is an ongoing scandal anyway so this comes as no surprise.

See also: Peer review “unscientific”: Tough words from editor of Nature

and

Breaking: Texas science standards survive the mother of all gravy bombs

Note: Flannelly has three more articles in the book: Darwin’s Books About Evolution and Reactions to Them

Greek Philosophy, Early Christian Theology, Purpose, and Change

and

19th Century Evolutionary Thought Before Charles Darwin

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Peer review: No need to get basic ID concepts right, when discussing ID

  1. 1
    Dionisio says:

    So much nonsense written out there.
    Pathetically sad reality of this accursed world.

    Peer review system that could not detect a mistake in an otherwise serious paper, where post-transcriptional and post-translational modifications were referred to interchangeably?
    A whole paper on post-translational modifications mistakenly referred to post-transcriptional modifications in the conclusions?
    Peer reviewers from different universities could not catch that error?
    Details of this case available upon request.

  2. 2
    rvb8 says:

    Indeed! Lots of words on the topic Dionisio.

    The wikipedia article on ID runs to several thousand words, and over 180 footnotes. These are taken from over 60 books, both advocating ID, and opposed to it.

    Though it must be said of the authors advocating ID, the list of authors would surprise no one here.

    The fact that politicians in several state legislatures regularly intone Discovery Institute, ‘academic freedom’ language, and that these politicians are usually young earth creationists, in no way hitches the wagon of ID to the horse of creationism.

    Most recently this has happened in Alabama, (or is that Alabami?), where House Joint Resolution 78, sponsored by Rep Mack Butler, (Republican, surprise!) uses, ‘both sides of the argument’, and ‘academic freedom’, language to poorly hide his staunch creationist views.

    ID language, including the usual suspects, Irreducible Complexity, Specified Complexity, Fine-tuned Universe, and Intelligent Designer, are heavily used by the good? representative.

    It passed, but is non-binding; and Alabama adds more evidence to the impression, most of the rest of the States already has of it.

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    The OP title can be generalized:

    Peer review: No need to get basic concepts right, when discussing anything.

  4. 4

Leave a Reply