Memo to Discovery Institute: 50 peer-reviewed ID-friendly papers won’t make any difference

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 10, 2012

News, Peer review}

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

Reflecting on what the Discovery Institute has learned after fifty peer-reviewed ID papers, David Klinghoffer writes about the pervasive claims on the Internet that there are no peer-reviewed ID papers (Evolution News & Views, February 8, 2012). The claims will probably continue to riff off each other’s authority. Many people need to say: “Not a single peer-reviewed paper!” for the sound effect alone.

The no-design people are building their cocoon world, where you, nature, and reality don’t belong. (And you – and we – are hardly the biggest part of what doesn’t belong.)

Meanwhile, Casey Luskin asks, so what good is peer review? (Evolution News & Views, February 10, 2012),

Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus and Newton’s Principia. Einstein’s original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review.1 Indeed, Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper.

Moreover, important scientific work has not uncommonly been initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals. As a 2001 article in Science observed, “Mention ‘peer review’ and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory.”2 Indeed, an article in the journal Science Communication by Juan Miguel Campanario notes that top journals such as “Science and Nature have also sometimes rejected significant papers,” and in fact “Nature has even rejected work that eventually earned the Nobel Prize.”3 In an amusing letter titled “Not in our Nature,” Campanario reminds the journal of four examples where it rejected significant papers:

Sure. Getting past peer review just means that the in crowd doesn’t need you to fail just now.

But we doubt that they intended to let it get to fifty. Big oops.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

OT: This recent article from physorg is interesting;
Quantum physicist explains $100K offer for proof scaled-up quantum computing is impossible - February 2012 Excerpt: It’s all a matter of decoherence he says, where the quantum parts of the computer must of necessity interact with those that are not. http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-quantum-physicist-100k-proof-scaled-up.html
I guess part of the reason for the skepticism against 'scaled-up quantum computing' is because, despite huge investment, so far man's attempt at quantum computation is very modest,,,
NIST Scientists Use Microwaves to Quantum-Entangle Two Ions for the First Time - August 2011 Excerpt: We’re still many years away from the first functioning quantum computer the size of a building, much less the first one the size of a desktop computer or a smartphone, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-08/nist-scientists-use-microwaves-entangle-two-ions-first-time Quantum Computing Promises New Insights, Not Just Supermachines - December - 2011 Excerpt: Unfortunately, while small quantum computations have already been demonstrated in the lab, they typically fall apart after only a few dozen operations. That’s why one of the most-celebrated quantum computations to date has been to factor 15 into 3 times 5 — with high statistical confidence! The problem is decoherence: basically, stray interactions that intrude prematurely on the computer’s fragile quantum state, “collapsing” it like a soufflé. In theory, it ought to be possible to reduce decoherence to a level where error-correction techniques could render its remaining effects insignificant. But experimentalists seem nowhere near that critical level yet. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/science/scott-aaronson-quantum-computing-promises-new-insights.html?pagewanted=all
Perhaps these researchers, if they are looking for actual proof that 'scaled up quantum computing' can actually be done, should look to DNA, where 'scaled up quantum computing', on a massive scale, is happening right before our eyes!
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum Computing in DNA – Stuart Hameroff Excerpt: Hypothesis: DNA utilizes quantum information and quantum computation for various functions. Superpositions of dipole states of base pairs consisting of purine (A,G) and pyrimidine (C,T) ring structures play the role of qubits, and quantum communication (coherence, entanglement, non-locality) occur in the “pi stack” region of the DNA molecule.,,, We can then consider DNA as a chain of qubits (with helical twist). Output of quantum computation would be manifest as the net electron interference pattern in the quantum state of the pi stack, regulating gene expression and other functions locally and nonlocally by radiation or entanglement. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/QuantumComputingInDNA.html Biophotons - The Light In Our Cells - Marco Bischof - March 2005 Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism. http://www.international-light-association.eu/PDF/Biophotons.pdf The Real Bioinformatics Revolution - Proteins and Nucleic Acids 'Singing' to One Another? Excerpt: the molecules send out specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves which not only enable them to ‘see' and ‘hear' each other, as both photon and phonon modes exist for electromagnetic waves, but also to influence each other at a distance and become ineluctably drawn to each other if vibrating out of phase (in a complementary way).,,, More than 1 000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions. ,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TheRealBioinformaticsRevolution.php
Also of related interest:
Quote from the following video: 'I was in a body and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head. It had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And 'it' was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.' - Vicky Noratuk Coast to Coast - Vicki's Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y "Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature." St. Augustine
Verse and Music:
Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." FFH - One of These Days http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHdSgQVIb5c
bornagain77_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

"As a 2001 article in Science observed, “Mention ‘peer review’ and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory.” What utter wickedness. Note well, Elizabeth. In fact the whole article. I doubt if there is any official body as vicious as a professional establishment. Modern medicine is a great blessing on mankind, yet its history, again up to the present, has been blighted by extraordinarily vicious attacks on the most innovative thinkers - whose very existence they seemed to view as threatening their status - sometimes from luminaries in its governing bodies. I'd like to have seen them try to steal Einstein's Relativity theories. Vermin. The history of the world to this day (consider a majority of national leaders), is largely a chronicle of the ministrations of psychopaths down the millennia, and their inordinate influence on human affairs. Psychopaths, 'snakes in suits', as they have been called in an eponymous book, are especially adept at reaching high office and, indeed, people it disproportionately. There are some fascinating articles online on the subject.Axel_{February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply