Our old pal Kazmer Ujvarosy of the American Chronicle has a long and boring rant against the whole system of peer review. There’s nothing really new in it; we know peer review is flawed, and practically every scientist can give you gripes about cronyism and bad reviewers and yadda yadda yadda, but at the same time, no system is ever going to be perfect, and we work within the bounds of what is effective. Ujvarosy, of course, is peeved because creationism doesn’t get any respect in the science journals. Changes to the policies of review, however, won’t change the fact that Intelligent Design creationism is baloney.

What I find interesting in his cranky essay, though, is that he reveals two things that have emerged before, but that the creationists deny.

In the final analysis if the scientific community is to remain productive intellectually, a protective system must be provided for the creative minority, however erratic or zany their ideas may seem to the incomparably zanier Darwinists. A repressive evolutionist environment, forced upon the community of scientists by a secular and aggressive Darwinist priesthood, stymies creativity and literally fossilizes thought. Science writers contribute to this unhealthy state of affairs by tending to accept wholesale anything these quacks — no matter what credentials they have — spoon-feed them in the name of science.

“a protective system must be provided for the creative minority”…what he’s asking for is a kind of special-case protectionism where non-science is given a slot in the science publication process. Like Behe admitting that one of ID’s goals is to change the very definition of science to allow the supernatural in, that’s what Ujvarosy is also asking for — special treatment. A redefinition of peer-review that will remove the normal (albeit sometimes poorly implemented) quality control. A system that allows authors to replace the usual demand for rigor with his idea of being “creative” (read: “insane”).

Here’s another, uh, revelation:

In any case the theory of creation positing that our universe has a seed origin, which seed is Jesus Christ, is so heretical in scientific circles that no editor conditioned to the doctrine of Darwinian evolution from a simple beginning would touch it.

That’s what we need! A system for evaluating scientific work that gives special privileges to Christians!

Warren Chisum, the Texas legislator who peddled an anti-evolution memo, has, well, ummm, finally read what he was trying to legislate.

On Tuesday, the Pampa Republican distributed a memo written by Georgia GOP Rep. Ben Bridges to Texas House members’ mailboxes. The memo advocated that schools stop teaching evolution and contained links to a Web site that warns of international Jewish conspiracies. It also directed readers to the group that created the Web site – the Atlanta-area Fair Education Foundation.

Mr. Chisum said he hadn’t looked at the Web site and didn’t realize that he was distributing that type of material. He expressed chagrin that he didn’t vet the material more carefully.

He said he believes creation and evolution should both be taught in schools, and he separated himself from what he called "goofy stuff" on the Web site.

There was "non-goofy stuff" at Fixed Earth? He can’t simultaneously separate himself from the "goofy stuff" and be advocating goofy creationism.

It adds another interesting data point to those at Dover and Kansas: the people on the political side who are pushing the various flavors of creationism on schools rarely seem to have actually read the material they say is so important for school kids to know.

We evolutionists had our big day on 12 February, when we celebrated the birthday of Charles Darwin. It seems only fair, then, that the Intelligent Design creationists should also have a special day, when we contemplate their special style of ‘science’. I think today, the 15th of February, is an appropriate day.

Today is John Frum Day.

It’s a holy day to Cargo Cultists, those Pacific islanders who believed that erecting symbolic runways and effigies of airplanes would summon a return of the cargo, the riches of America. The Intelligent Design creationists have also put up a simulacrum, the Biologic Institute, with fume hoods and white lab coats, from which they hope to summon scientific credibility. They’ve also been fooled into thinking the appearance is the same as the substance.

Since literal Cargo Cultists aren’t a significant presence in the US, but creationists are, I suggest we appropriate this holiday and call it Intelligent Design Day. Don’t worry about going to any effort to celebrate it, though—all you have to do is pretend that you are celebrating it, just as the Intelligent Design creationists pretend that they’re doing science.

The Atheist Experience has Kent Hovind’s phone calls from jail online. Hovind is such a pretentious fraud; he compares himself to George Washington and the IRS to the Mafia and Hitler’s minions, and insists through it all that he’s completely innocent. He also makes the claim that the people persecuting him will get their comeuppance on Judgement Day—that belief must be such a consolation to many petty crooks.

I did feel a little sympathy for his wife, who does express some worry and remorse…and good ol’ Kent just barrels over her concerns and tries to tell her what the law is. That tactic worked on his wife, but it doesn’t seem to have impressed the lawyers or judge.

Sad to say, I’m discovering that some people got the wrong message from my talk last night. Something went awry, I’m not sure what, because they took home exactly the opposite idea from what I intended. I’ll try summarize what I meant to say here.

[Read more…]

What’s the matter with New Scientist? Check out Ian Musgrave’s smackdown of Douglas Axe and the Biologic Institute is good stuff.

If Douglas Axe and his co-signers are so badly misinformed about something as basic and well known as the relations between engineers, computer designers and biologists, can we trust their judgment on any research that comes out of this Institute?

The DI claims to be supporting real research…so why is what little emerges from them so bad?

This is a sad story of compartmentalization carried to an extreme: a Ph.D. student in the geosciences who is also young earth creationist. This is a tricky subject: religion is not a litmus test for awarding a degree, but supposedly depth and breadth of knowledge is. I say that you cannot legitimately earn an advanced degree in geology and at the same time hold a belief contrary to all the evidence, and that the only way you can accomplish it is by basically lying to yourself and your committee throughout the process—and look at this…the student agrees.

Asked whether it was intellectually honest to write a dissertation so at odds with his religious views, he said: “I was working within a particular paradigm of earth history. I accepted that philosophy of science for the purpose of working with the people” at Rhode Island.

And though his dissertation repeatedly described events as occurring tens of millions of years ago, Dr. Ross added, “I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates.”

In other words, he was going through the motions. He was doing “research” on the distribution of mosasaurs 65 million years ago, but what he was actually doing was echoing ideas he disagreed with to fit the expectations of his advisors—he was a complete fraud.

I have a hard time imagining spending 4+ years working hard at something I believed was a complete lie, but this guy did it, and thinks he accomplished something. His motive clearly was not a love of science, but to acquire credentials under false pretenses that he could then use to endorse his ideology. What a waste of his time; I wouldn’t hire such a phony, and I don’t know anyone who would. Where could he end up working? But of course…

Today he teaches earth science at Liberty University, the conservative Christian institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell where, Dr. Ross said, he uses a conventional scientific text.

“We also discuss the intersection of those sorts of ideas with Christianity,” he said. “I don’t require my students to say or write their assent to one idea or another any more than I was required.”

If his training was a lie, I guess he doesn’t have any scruples about lying a little more: I’ve seen the job ads from Liberty University, and a “young earth philosophy” is a prerequisite for teaching there. He teaches something called CRST 290, which is in a “religious studies” category, taught as part of their required instruction in “creation studies”.

CRST 290: History of Life

An interdisciplinary study of the origin and history of
life in the universe. Faculty of the Center for Creation
Studies will draw from science, religion, history, and
philosophy in presenting the evidence and arguments for
creation and evolution.

I think the University of Rhode Island might want to review their doctoral programs a bit. It looks like someone can slip through with only the most superficial knowledge of their field, and can admit to faking it throughout their entire training. This kind of slack in the standards diminishes the luster of degrees from RI.

It also says something even worse of Liberty University. They’ll hire any old hack to teach their courses.