Pharyngula::Whoops, that backfired on 'em

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Whoops, that backfired on 'em

PZ Myers • 11 Comments

You may have heard that the Discovery Institute had a bit of a 'triumph': they got a pro-Intelligent Design article published in a peer-reviewed journal, the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Maybe. It seems to have blown up in their faces, though, because the NCSE has just announced that the journal has just issued a damning repudiation.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.
We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (http://www.biolsocwash.org) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.

That last bit is awfully suspicious. There were suspicions that peer-review might have been circumvented by the editor of the journal, Richard von Sternberg, who is a creationist, friend to the DI, and associated with the "Baraminology Study Group" at Bryan College. It sounds like the board of the society also thinks there were some irregularities. It also sounds like the board of the society was more than a little embarrassed at the crap that was smuggled into their journal.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1183/kj3O5pwq/

Comments:

#5869: Philip Brooks — 09/07 at 07:27 PM
I wouldn't say it backfired. ID folks can now truthfully say their ideas were published in a peer-reviewed "Evolutionist" journal. Most people who hear them make this claim (especially the politicians) won't bother to actually find the article and read the repudiation.

#5875: mattH — 09/07 at 08:36 PM
All the more reason to make a big deal out of it now, especially if the peer review process was circumvented. It might be a bit embarassing for the BSW to admit as much, but much less embarassing than having an ID-supportive title published in their journal. Make sure it gets all of it's deserved attention now so that everyone hears about what happened, about how duplicitous the creationists really are.

#5881: Les Lane — 09/08 at 09:28 AM
I've just finished a page summarizing the Proceedings' recent scandal as well as its lesser know involvement in the "mock turtle" scandal.

#5896: mattH — 09/08 at 02:19 PM
Thanks Les.

#5899: — 09/08 at 02:54 PM
Except that now the ID folks and their religious sponsors will be able to point to this as "the evolutionists" voting to keep ideas they don't like out of print. They will not make the distinction that some ideas just don't have backup -- that would take honesty.

Here's how that will work:
a) they printed it, so it was obviously good, valid research, and passed that peer review they're always jawing about, and
b) then, after a hew and cry from the ivory towers that it didn't match up with evolutionists' dogma, they announced they'd keep any other articles out of their journal despite the fact that this article showed these articles meet their publishing requirements.

So that's my prediction -- anyone think they won't use that tactic? Just wait and see.

#5906: mattH — 09/09 at 04:11 AM
Of course they will, that's why we need to hammer home the fact that they (probably) circumvented the scientific method, especially peer review, because that was the only way that they could get it "published". We need to make sure that everyone knows that it was subjected to less scrutiny than a letter to the editor at a small town paper and they were quite duplicitous because that was the only way they could compete; they lied and cheated because their work can't stand on it's own merits. And it has to be repeated again and again. Every time THE paper by Stephen C. Meyer comes up, the fact that he cheated has to be associated with it. The creationists out there subsist on the good will of the American public and the (false) idea that they are not being treated fairly. Because cheating is inherently unfair, we can turn that good will away from them by pointing this out.

This is the perfect example of something that they thought would help that can hurt them badly. We just have to follow up on the opportunity.

#5920: — 09/09 at 12:00 PM
So what you're saying is that those people who read very carefully and follow up on stories and claims will find out what really happened and understand it. Great. What about the other 90% of people?

No, getting this paper published in a journal that does peer review was a win-win situation for them. The idea that those people who are already uninformed enough to believe the premise of ID will see through the IDers' spin on this affair is, IMO, ludicrous. They have shown little to nmo sign of wishing to be informed, and IDers have a history of being spinmeisters -- really good ones who use any dishonest method they can. It was a huge win for them no matter what anyone does now, and Humpty Dumpty is broken. Try to pick up the pieces and reconstruct him, sure; it'll be useful for those (relatively few) folks who will allow themselves to be informed, and so it'll help to some degree with school board fights -- but this is a huge win for IDers and their dishonest methods.

#5925: mattH — 09/09 at 01:46 PM
So what you’re saying is that those people who read very carefully and follow up on stories and claims will find out what really happened and understand it.

No, that is not what I am saying. I'm suggesting, quite loudly, that we preempt this attack, that we make sure that every time this subject comes up, everyone knows that this is based on cheating and lying. We don't wait until the creationists get word out and then try to put out fires, we get out ahead of them and make sure everyone knows that they are liars and cheats. This nips it the bud and also presents the opportunity to take the attack to them. They are liars and often they cheat. It's our responsibility to take this situation and make it not only a failure, but the beginnings of their greatest mistake. Get the word out, preepmtively attack the paper, because we know it's coming and if we don't do something about it, it's not going to be anyone's fault but our own.

#5932: QrazyQat — 09/09 at 08:05 PM
I have to say (I honestly didn't want to start an argument) that this is a good idea and all, but there are just loads and loads of people it won't work on -- if that sort of thing did work, we really wouldn't see any headway in ID and creationism in school boards and legislatures. But it has to be done, certainly, because those guys are definitely going to do it.

My first comment was to make clear that this isn't any kind of automatic failure for them -- once the article was accepted they were in a win-win situation, and it's going to take a lot to overcome that. And I thought that by being aware that they will almost certainly use the argument I outlined, one might be ready to counter it, and possibly defuse it somewhat by being preemptive as you suggested. But in essense they've been using variations of this argument (that the "Ivory Tower" acts like a religion and has dogmatic ideas that they won't let be challenged) and this instance gives them something solid to point to that sounds far too much like what they've been saying. It will be convincing to a lot of people, and we all have to be aware of that. In fact, because this paper was published, and now the subject is essentially voted off the pages, their argument will sound convincing to far more people than it did before. The publication of that article was a terrible mistake that will give us problems for years -- probably decades -- to come.

#5956: mattH — 09/10 at 01:16 PM
The only reason I've said what I have, and to the extent that I have, is because it seemed to me that there's a sense of fatalism to your posts, yet the point I'm trying to make is that the tactics are always the same, they're an opponent that has no variability in their tactics, and that is the very weakness that we can exploit; there's hope that this isn't the doom and gloom you make it out to be.

This whole thing is like a used-car salesman who has this vehicle he's getting ready to sell, so he goes to a shop managed by a friend that specializes in bumper examination, ask them to look the engine over, gets a pass from them, and then promptly touts how wonderful it is based on that. We just need to be sure that every time someone goes to buy this "car" they understand the lemon that they are getting. The only way that they win is if we don't.

Not that I think it's going to be quick, easy, or short term, but it's not hopeless. This was bound to happen some day, but it was bound to happen this way because it was the only way it could happen, and I would go as far as to say that the facts (as always) and opportunity are still on our side.

#6091: Tom Schneider — 09/15 at 10:29 AM
The simplest thing to do is to demonstrate
clearly and unequivocally that the paper is
full of holes. For resources to do this see:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/#Meyer

Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: Texas: It isn't just creationism

Previous entry: Objective: Make Fun of Creationists

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Whoops, that backfired on 'em

Info