RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Invidious comparisons, The polemics of "intelligent design"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4619
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2003,09:42   

Dembski deploys Soviet::Darwinist analogy, yet again

In the current intellectual climate it is impossible to get a paper published in the peer-reviewed biological literature that explicitly affirms intelligent design or explicitly denies Darwinian and other forms of naturalistic evolution. Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposing the party line of a Stalinist regime. What would you do if you were in Stalin's Russia and wanted to argue that Lysenko was wrong? You might point to paradoxes and tensions in Lysenko's theory of genetics, but you could not say that Lysenko was fundamentally wrong or offer an alternative that clearly contradicted Lysenko. That's the situation we're in. To get published in the peer-reviewed literature, design theorists have to tread cautiously and can't be too up front about where their work is leading. Indeed, that's why I was able to get The Design Inference published with Cambridge University Press but not No Free Lunch, which was much more explicit in its biological implications.

-- Topic: ID and Peer Review

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

  49 replies since May 07 2002,10:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]