Re: Peer reviewed ID publications

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu Nov 03 2005 - 23:59:05 EST

Terry M. Gray wrote:

> Joel,
>
> One of them is the Protein Science article last year by Behe and
> Snook. They may also be counting the follow-up article from Behe and
> Snook in last month's Protein Science, where there was a formal peer
> reviewed rebuttal of their earlier piece. The editors invited Behe
> and Snook to follow up--I'm sure their response was peer reviewed.
>
>

I doubt that a response is peer reviewed. The article by Behe and Snoke
may have been peer reviewed but hardly relevant to ID. It is an argument
against a limited form of natural selection and chance, mostly focusing
on chance.
The rebuttal mostly destroyed their claims and subsequence non peer
reviewed claims by ID proponents about what Behe and Snoke had shown.

It may be peer reviewed papers by authors who are also ID proponents but
they have little relevance to the issue of intelligent design. Or did I
miss how the authors explain the origin of binding sites?
Received on Fri Nov 4 00:00:12 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 04 2005 - 00:00:12 EST