Darwinists' "peer review" fetish
The issue of "peer review" is now a hot topic, with articles and threads on Uncommon Descent, Panda's Thumb, Evolution News & Views, and The Questionable Authority.
Darwinists have made a fetish of peer review, frequently charging that there are no or few peer-reviewed papers that challenge Darwinism. Yet there are no widely accepted standards for peer review. Theoretically, a Journal of Criticism of Darwinism could be established for the express purpose of publishing peer-reviewed criticisms of Darwinism.
The terms "peer review," "peer reviewed," and "peer-reviewed" appear 21 times in Judge Jones' Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion. It is noteworthy that neither that opinion nor any other decision in the case was peer-reviewed prior to release. An appeal might be considered to be a form of peer review, but there was no appeal in Kitzmiller.
Darwinists have made a fetish of peer review, frequently charging that there are no or few peer-reviewed papers that challenge Darwinism. Yet there are no widely accepted standards for peer review. Theoretically, a Journal of Criticism of Darwinism could be established for the express purpose of publishing peer-reviewed criticisms of Darwinism.
The terms "peer review," "peer reviewed," and "peer-reviewed" appear 21 times in Judge Jones' Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion. It is noteworthy that neither that opinion nor any other decision in the case was peer-reviewed prior to release. An appeal might be considered to be a form of peer review, but there was no appeal in Kitzmiller.
Labels: Evolution controversy (2 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/18/2006 12:23:00 AM
1 Comments:
The Troll has reached new heights of insanity trying to link peer-review (a concept that he shows that he doesn't understand) and court decisions.
Post a Comment
<< Home