What peer review looks like

June 23rd, 2009 | 14 Comments

Science is just a buddy system of evolutionists who routinely turn a blind eye to methodological rigor in order to make sure evolution looks credible. Peer review’s a sham, meant to give the predetermined results a little added credibility. Right?

Remember the story a couple years ago about how a couple scientists claimed they were able to extract some protein residue from the femur of a 68 million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex? The article published in Science made the phenomenal-if-true claim that the peptides in the T. rex were startlingly similar to those of a modern chicken, which would appear to demonstrate the accuracy of long-held postulations about the evolutionary relationship between saurischian dinosaurs and birds.

But as Carl Sagan noted, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Wired Magazine chronicles the story of how the 2007 claim that astounded the scientific community with its audacity was put through the ringer and consequently rejected by scads of the most qualified experts, and how the scientists behind the original claim were forced to go back, retest, and republish. The results of the team’s latest study are quite interesting.

This whole story highlights the fallacy put forth with astounding regularity by evolution-deniers that mainstream science is not rigorous or honest about the data, but is made up of agenda-driven scientists who simply front-load all their claims in favor of evolution.

Note: if you can’t force yourself to read on through the technical language in this article, maybe you should think twice before using your own non-specialist expertise to debunk evolution.

FacebookRedditGoogle ReaderDiggStumbleUponPrintFriendlyShare

Related posts:

  1. Review: Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution by Denis O. Lamoureux My rating: 4 of 5 stars I have long maintained that we cannot hope...
  2. Would he be having a happy birthday? Two days shy of four months ago I posted a poll that asked Christians how important the faith/science debate is. I was going to wait...
  3. Creationism, education, and the state All right, here’s a rant for you. There’s a news story circulating about the well-known fact that homeschooling texts are ignoring or even (the audacity!)...
  4. Modern dinosaurs and misleading science jargon The Created Evolutionist linked me over to an article in December’s Smithsonian Magazine about the important transitional links found between dinosaurs and modern birds. First...

June 23rd, 2009

Tags: , , ,

  • AMW

    Today, I want to believe that peer review is a sham. I just got rejected by RAND for an article on auction mechanisms. That makes four rejections (on this paper alone). It’s a conspiracy, I tell you!

  • AMW

    Today, I want to believe that peer review is a sham. I just got rejected by RAND for an article on auction mechanisms. That makes four rejections (on this paper alone). It’s a conspiracy, I tell you!

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    That’s too bad. Maybe the article stinks?

    Really, though: have you gotten any feedback on why they’re rejecting it?

  • http://undeception.com Steve

    That’s too bad. Maybe the article stinks?

    Really, though: have you gotten any feedback on why they’re rejecting it?

  • AMW

    That’s too bad. Maybe the article stinks?

    You’re in on it too?!

  • AMW

    That’s too bad. Maybe the article stinks?

    You’re in on it too?!

  • AMW

    International Economic Review was split decision: one for, one against, and the guy who was against had virtually no feedback. The editor decided to give us thumbs down, probably because IER is a top 20 journal, so he probably figured if we didn’t wow both refs it wasn’t worth the time. The Economic Journal rejected us without ref review because they’re already publishing a number of auction papers and the editor couldn’t see bumping any of them from publication in favor of ours. Economic Inquiry got a trimmed down paper containing only some of our results. The refs liked the design but didn’t think the results were weighty enough (we’ve since added everything back in). RAND is a top 20 journal and rejected us without ref review; we just got a form letter notification.

    So now it’s on to Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. I’m fairly upbeat about our chances. JEBO publishes a lot of experimental work and it’s not as high-tier of a publication as most of the above. So I like our chances.

    In economics, there are so many journals that somebody will publish what you’ve got. The challenge is getting your work into a noteworthy journal.

  • AMW

    International Economic Review was split decision: one for, one against, and the guy who was against had virtually no feedback. The editor decided to give us thumbs down, probably because IER is a top 20 journal, so he probably figured if we didn’t wow both refs it wasn’t worth the time. The Economic Journal rejected us without ref review because they’re already publishing a number of auction papers and the editor couldn’t see bumping any of them from publication in favor of ours. Economic Inquiry got a trimmed down paper containing only some of our results. The refs liked the design but didn’t think the results were weighty enough (we’ve since added everything back in). RAND is a top 20 journal and rejected us without ref review; we just got a form letter notification.

    So now it’s on to Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. I’m fairly upbeat about our chances. JEBO publishes a lot of experimental work and it’s not as high-tier of a publication as most of the above. So I like our chances.

    In economics, there are so many journals that somebody will publish what you’ve got. The challenge is getting your work into a noteworthy journal.

  • BMH

    Actually, what this illustrates is that peer review can fail (the original article was published despite its major problems), but that there is a fail-safe. The scientific community pounces on incomplete or incorrect claims like hyenas on a zebra carcass.

  • BMH

    Actually, what this illustrates is that peer review can fail (the original article was published despite its major problems), but that there is a fail-safe. The scientific community pounces on incomplete or incorrect claims like hyenas on a zebra carcass.

  • AMW

    Actually, what this illustrates is that peer review can fail (the original article was published despite its major problems), but that there is a fail-safe. The scientific community pounces on incomplete or incorrect claims like hyenas on a zebra carcass.

    True. Replication is the gold standard, not a statistically significant result or a publication. Get enough replication and you’ve got consensus. Let consensus stand the test of time and you’ve got science.

  • AMW

    Actually, what this illustrates is that peer review can fail (the original article was published despite its major problems), but that there is a fail-safe. The scientific community pounces on incomplete or incorrect claims like hyenas on a zebra carcass.

    True. Replication is the gold standard, not a statistically significant result or a publication. Get enough replication and you’ve got consensus. Let consensus stand the test of time and you’ve got science.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Thanks, BMH – what you noted is almost precisely the thing I wanted to convey when I decided to blog about this article. But somehow, it didn’t come across, or at least not nearly as well as you did. Thanks.

    As Gordon Glover likes to point out, can you imagine the fame and fortune awaiting a scientist who presents evidence that throws our understanding of the age of the universe or the theory of evolution on their ear? Yet if you listen to the religious leaders talking, you’ll come away with the idea that both of those were debunked long ago. Someone better tell the scientists!

  • http://undeception.com Steve

    Thanks, BMH – what you noted is almost precisely the thing I wanted to convey when I decided to blog about this article. But somehow, it didn’t come across, or at least not nearly as well as you did. Thanks.

    As Gordon Glover likes to point out, can you imagine the fame and fortune awaiting a scientist who presents evidence that throws our understanding of the age of the universe or the theory of evolution on their ear? Yet if you listen to the religious leaders talking, you’ll come away with the idea that both of those were debunked long ago. Someone better tell the scientists!