Re: Peer reviewed ID publications

From: Terry M. Gray <>
Date: Fri Nov 04 2005 - 00:38:43 EST


The editorial introduction by Mark Hermodson says "All participants
were informed that everything to be considered for publication in the
journal, whether in letter or manuscript form, would have to go
through careful scientific review and receive endorsement in order to
be published" and "The various letters and manuscripts were reviewed
as a package by the editors and by outside experts."

Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment that Behe and Snoke's
paper is refuted--primarily because their assumptions are much too
narrow. There is no disagreement that, given their assumptions, they
have a sound analysis. However, their assumptions are viewed as

DI does list this article in the publications by ID friendly
investigators. I think that there is an attempt (albeit flawed) here
to show that the gene duplication mechanism for giving rise to novel
functions is not feasible given Behe and Snoke's assumptions. This is
an example, I think, of a scientific approach to eliminating proposed
mechanisms. There is a fundamentally negative approach here (we show
that such and such can't happen), but I don't think that the approach
is fundamentally non-scientific.

For those who want to pursue it more, these articles appears in
Protein Science 14: 2215-2227 (September 2005). Protein Science is a
sound peer-reviewed journal. I had an article published there about a
decade ago. I can attest that it is thoroughly peer-reviewed. I even
had to go back and do a few more experiments in order to satisfy the


On Nov 3, 2005, at 9:59 PM, Pim van Meurs wrote:

> 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?

Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Fri Nov 4 00:40:15 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 04 2005 - 00:40:16 EST