Peer-Review, Intelligent Design, and John Derbyshire’s New Bumper Sticker (Part III)

Previously I wrote about problems with John Derbyshire’s TalkOrigins webpage, which I discussed here (Part I) and here (Part II). Where’s the Citation? The TalkOrigins webpate asserts that The Design Inference doesn’t count because it was reviewed by “philosophers, not biologists.” Even if correct, why should that matter? The book was reviewed by the relevant experts in the field which relates to theoretical design-detection, the subject of the book. Moreover, where is the citation on the TalkOrigins page so we can verify their claim? And why should one assume that The Design Inference, published as a part of “Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory” and containing many technical mathematical arguments, was not reviewed by mathematicians? Obfuscating the Facts Read More ›

Peer-Review, Intelligent Design, and John Derbyshire’s New Bumper Sticker (Part II)

In Part I, I responded to John Derbyshire’s points about ID and peer-review. Part II will rebut some of the false claims on the TalkOrigins webpage cited by Mr. Derbyshire. I will finish this post with Part III later this week. Firstly, the TalkOrigins webpage claims there should be more pro-ID peer-reviewed papers “especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement.” This statement is highly ironic! The money available for ID research is dwarfed by evolution-funding. Tens of millions of dollars in grants are given to evolution research each year. Because Darwinists hold the purse-strings, design theorists have little-to-no chance of obtaining an NSF grant to explicitly investigate ID. Indeed, the NCSE got over $450,000 from the Read More ›

Peer-Review, Intelligent Design, and John Derbyshire’s New Bumper Sticker (Part I)

The Talk Origins Bumper Sticker: John Derbyshire gave a brief review of Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision at National Review Online. Unfortunately, Mr. Derbyshire misses our point about peer-review and ID, and repeats typical Darwinist goalpost-changing tactics on the issue of peer-review. Regarding peer-review, Derbyshire claims that “Judge Jones has way the better of the argument.” Let’s see exactly what Judge Jones says regarding ID and peer-review: “It has not generated peer-reviewed publications” (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp. 707, 735 (M.D. Pa. 2005) “A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory.” (Id. at 744) “The evidence presented in this case Read More ›