More on Meyer's creationist paper

As you may remember, not so long ago I comented on the fact that S.C. Meyer, a well-known defender of the intelligent design theory (basically, the modern version of the Natural Theology of Paley), has managed to put forward a review in a peer-reviewed journal. You can find it at Evolucionarios (telling the truth, you can also find it in the original source at the Discovery Institute, but I don't want to put a link to that).

The issue has atracted a lot of atention, as expected. A search in Google with the full title of the article gives 13.500 hits. And all that in less than two months, only one since it's available on-line. At the National Center for Science Education site (an organisation devoted to defend the teaching of the evolutionary theory) you can find a follow up of the story, as you can also do at The Panda's Thumb "The "Meyer 2004" Medley".

Soon after its publication, several members of the Biological Society of Washington (the one that publishes the journal in which the article came; it only has 250 members) declared their repulse for the publication. In fact, the BSW has issued an statement repudiating the article, recognizing that it "represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history", and that the BSW endorses the declaration of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on the ID theory.

But creationists don't mind this, especially the ID ones. They are quite happy withe media coverage achieved, mainly because now they will be able to manipulate the situation even more. All the criticism is inquisition-like, they say. I can already imagine how future meetings of academic comitees will be when creationism defenders use the article as "evidence" of the lack of support of the evolutionary theory and that the ID theory is at least equally respectable and that then ID theory should be taught in schools.

All this noise even though, as I already said, a thorough analysis has been performed at The Panda's Thumb. Let me quote their conclusion:

"There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom — continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the “intelligent design” movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They’re not even playing the same sport."

How came, then? If the BSW is ashamed of what happened, how is it possible that they published the article in the first place? Saying it hurts, but this is a case of editorial corruption. The former editor-in-chief, Richard von Sternberg, is a well-known advocate of the ID and, although he denies it, he is a creationist by heart*. He claims that the reviewing process was as usual, but the current editor says that the article should have been rejected because the topic doesn't match the line of the journal, even without regarding the actual content. He also says that Sternberg didn't follow the usual procedure because instead of passing the article to an associate (quite logical, sure there wasn't any appropiate because the journal doesn't publish articles of that sort) he took it for himself. Sternberg afirms that he received favourable reports from three independent prestigious referees, although he doesn't tell who they were nor in which fields of expertise they are so prestigious (in fact, he only gave information about their academic possitions; doesn't it look like an authority criterium?).

In conclusion, it's shameful. A corrupt editor (and, if we take into account that his task is to judge the quality of a paper before publishing it, we can also "sue" him for prevarication), fellow (friend?) of the author, manages to divert the journal he works for from the topic it covers to achieve what it wasn't possible before: that an article that lies and hides the truth on purpose appears in the scientific bibliographical corpus. From right now I predict which paper is going to be the most cited in the creationist world and I foresee that others will follow if the precedent of this infamous couple spreads.

---

* Sternberg contacted The Scientist because he was concerned that some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists. "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory," he said. "The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."
However, the Baraminology Study Group views biological creation as happening instantly, rather than through evolutionary descent. Meyer's Discovery Institute is an open pro-ID center, and the Palm Beach Atlantic University of which he is an associate fellow states in its guiding principles that "To assure the perpetuation of these basic concepts of its founders, it is resolved that all those who become associated with Palm Beach Atlantic (...) must believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible (...); that man was directly created by God; (...)"
Are they creationists, the two of them, or not ?