Saturday, February 19, 2005
Peer Review of Intelligent Design Minority Report Is In, and It Isn't Pretty
The Kansas State Department of Education has posted peer review comments on the minority report produced by eight members of the science standards writing committe who seek to open the door to intelligent design in the public school curriculum here. Peer review is a system using reviewers who are the professional equals of the principal investigator, or program director, who is to be responsible for directing or conducting the proposed project. It is a form of objective review. Peer review is legislatively mandated in some programs and in other programs is administratively required.
Here are some of their comments:
Responding to this section of the minority report:
Peer reviewer Karen E. Bartelt, Ph.D., a Professor of Chemistry at Eureka College tells ID proponents that they need to roll up their sleeves and do some real work,
Peer reviewer Scott Brande, Ph.D. , Associate Professor of Natural Science & Mathematics at the University of Alabama-Birmingham debunks the notion that because evolution looks at the past, it isn't science:
Here are some of their comments:
Responding to this section of the minority report:
"Methodological naturalism is scientifically problematic in origins science because it violates two key aspects of the scientific method. It philosophically limits both the formation and testing of competing hypotheses. It limits hypothesis formation by philosophically ruling out a logical, evidence-based competitor to the evolutionary hypothesis, that is, that life and its diversity are the result of a process that is at least partially guided."
Peer reviewer Karen E. Bartelt, Ph.D., a Professor of Chemistry at Eureka College tells ID proponents that they need to roll up their sleeves and do some real work,
"No one is suggesting that the Proponents not go out and test their hypotheses. In fact, this has been recommended numerous times. When this has been done and there is actually some evidential support, then it is time to have the discussion about whether or where to include it."
Peer reviewer Scott Brande, Ph.D. , Associate Professor of Natural Science & Mathematics at the University of Alabama-Birmingham debunks the notion that because evolution looks at the past, it isn't science:
"(The Intelligent Design Network proposal) suggests that a distinction be made between scientific investigations of contemporary phenomena and that of historical phenomena. As a paleontologist, I investigate the past, but not by criteria different from that needed to explore the present. The primary criterion for assessing the strength of hypotheses is the conformity of the hypothesis with the evidence, regardless of whether the evidence is 10 minutes or 10 million years old. "
There's more, much more here. I urge you all to go to the KSDE site and take a look.
