How the Smallest Cells Give Big Evidence for a Creator

dmmesdale said:

Peer review, as you are using it, is an unscientific standard in the first place.
Garbage. Google problems with peer review. problems in peer review - Google Search
There are those words again.

It was peer reviewed. It does not conflict anything. How can it not pass if it was not reviewed? He got negative reviews by dogmatists. Who cares.


peer review signature in the cell - Google Search
Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories | Center for Science and Culture
They don't need it and if they are published authors their status is elevated in academia. Look at Bart Ehrmann. Obviously a heretic yet employed at a Christian university last i heard. Writing books is a valid way to circumvent the bias peer review process. Besides Meyer did have an article which underwent mainstream peer review, prior to Dover. Above.
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture
These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology, Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

dmmesdale, it appears that you did not realize how the article that I linked refuted your Behe claim.

His work was not "peer reviewed". Not to the standards of a professional journal. You are making a equivocation error. The article that I linked made that fact more than abundantly clear.

Click to expand...

dmmesdale said:

It was reviewed by his peers. That defines peer review. Just like A Universe From Nothing by Krauss was reviewed by his peers.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Wrong again. "Peer review" has a set definition when referring to works in the field of science. The "review" done by those scientists does not meet that standard:

Click to expand...

1. 1.
   evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.

The article that I linked and quoted from shows that it did not meet the rigors of a peer reviewed article as outlined here:

Explainer: what is peer review?

The quotes from the "reviewers" themselves demonstrated that fact. In an actual peer reviewed work they would have stopped at part two of the article I just linked. Errors were found so this would have happened at the very least:

Click to expand...

The book was never revised, even though it had errors in it. A mere perfunctory scan does not make an item "peer reviewed".

Click to expand...

You are guilty of making an equivocation error.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

On my, major fail.

One does not rely on a dictionary for a complex concept. It only skims the surface of usage.

And you just confirmed my claim. Once again the "reviewers" of Behe's work found errors. They were not corrected. That means by your own argument that Behe's work was not peer reviewed.

Your logic skills are either lacking or your bias won't let you see your error.

Click to expand...