Following my earlier post, some readers have e-mailed in arguing that
David’s Opinion Journal piece demonstrates that there is
a determination on the part of learned scientific journals to keep I.D.
proponents out of their pages.
Well, I should certainly hope so! I hope they will also keep out of their
pages proponents of the Flat Earth theory, the Hollow Earth theory, the phlogiston theory of
combustion, the theory of the Four Body Humours, and the tooth fairy theory.
Not everything that anyone can think up is worthy of inclusion in a
scientific journal. Speaking personally, if I were to open my copy of, say,
The Astronomical Journal (supposing I
were a subscriber, which I am not) and found myself looking at an article
that took UFO abductions seriously, I would cancel my subscription at once.
Lay people don’t realize how many pseudoscientific cranks there are out
there. The world is swarming with them! A couple of years ago I published
a book about an unsolved math problem. You wouldn’t believe some of the
mail I got — weird, weird stuff, written in all earnestness, claiming to
have solved that problem by dint of techniques from bibliomancy to yoga.
Let me tell you, the world is teeming with lunatics armed with iron
conviction and reams of theoretical justification for their crackpot
notions. Scientists see themselves as working to expand a little clearing
of light, of reason, in a vast chittering black jungle of superstition and
madness. Is it any wonder they are defensive?
Science, and its peer-reviewed journals, need solid defenses, constantly
manned. I would rather scientists were over-scrupulous about what they
let in than otherwise. After all, as numerous examples (e.g. continental
drift) have shown, a sound theory will eventually get recognition, however
wacky it might seem at first sight.
Nobody knows all this better than working scientists — which is why (see my
current NRODT piece) scientifically-trained I.D.-ers like Michael Behe know
better than to submit I.D. pieces to respectable journals of real science.






Comments