I found this site which I at first thought had some connection to Discovery Channel or Discover Magazine. But turns out it's a Creationist site. Sneaky, eh?
Discovery.org

Anyhow, thinking it was an article on evolution, and an analysis of ID, I was barely through the introduction when I came across the dead giveaway:

"In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa."

"Materialistic theory"?

How did his article get into a professional journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) . The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

So I dug deeper and found that it had been withdrawn after publication.

But that isn't preventing creationists from citing it, and the prestigious association with the Smithsonian.

So should warnings go out to all biological journals to be on guard? Or was this a fluke, and unlikely to happen again?

The prestigious British science journal Nature was embarrassed some years ago (late 1980s) by publishing -- then later retracting -- a study by Benveniste supporting homeopathic remedies, claiming evidence for so-called "water memory."

In the early 1980s there was a famous case of fraudulent tansplant research where patches of skin from black mice were grafted onto white mice without rejection -- until it was discovered the grafts were in reality painted patches! There are indeed plenty of such isolated cases of either deliberate hoaxes or sadly self-deluded researchers (remember Pons and Fleischman's "cold fusion"?).

I guess the peer-review process is not foolproof. Even valid, sober-minded research can sometimes yield contradictory results. The lesson is that one publication does not make or break a theory.

Creationists have repeadedly demonstrated a complete disregard for the protocols of logic, scientific method, and intellectual integrity -- so intense is their wishful longing to legitimize the phony baloney they peddle. All readers must be on guard against deliberate scientific fraud, especially in fields of research overlaid with contentious social issues such as Darwinian evolution.

But Babs, I don't know how to avoid this kind of chicanery or how to educate the public about gullibility. I'm optimistic that in the long run -- well past my lifetime -- scientific truths will sort themselves out and children will be educated according to established physical reality. Just don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Still, as the skeptical proverb says: Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out!

"Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.

Owner: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Mr. Praline: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

Owner: No no! 'E's pining!

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!"

A review of the paper in question...

Meyer’s Hopeless Monster

I saw a word used in "Meyer's hopeless monster" that I had never seen before, although the meaning was obvious. Just to be sure, I checked with MW. I was right. The definition of "babblegab" is "gobbledygook", as well it should be.

quote:

How did his article get into a professional journal...

'The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.'
STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

Richard Sternberg's homepage is all about how mean the Smithsonian was to him following publication of the Meyer paper. Sternberg also lists the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design ("retraining the scientific imagination to see purpose in nature") on this site as one of his professional memberships.

So how did the paper get published? An editor got religion.

Evolutionists' hymn?

Listen here!

Kinda cool!
******************

Thanks, NNN. This is all very interesting 'genesis'. I see he's the 'former' editor.

***********************
WHY DON'T THEY 'GET' IT?

"In sum, it is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because I failed in an unstated requirement in my role as editor of a scientific journal: I was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena. Instead, I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy." Dr. Richard Sternberg

Unstated rule? This is disingenuous from a man with his background!

"Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."

AND

"The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings."

The two quottions immediately above are from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington.