Re: Peer-Review
Rich Knopp (rknopp@prairienet.org)
Wed, 7 May 1997 11:28:58 -0500 (CDT)At 06:39 PM 5/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Russell Stewart asked...
>
>> [W]as Behe's book peer-reviewed?
>
SNIP
>
>Essentially Behe published an alternate interpretation of the facts--an
>act which does not normally require peer-review. His opposition
>frequently publishes their interpretations in the popular media without
>peer-review. They have become very adept at using both books and
>periodicals but also press releases and briefings to present their ideas
>to an interested and curious public. It is not fair to suggest that
>alternate interpretations be subjected to a higher standard of
>"validation" than the accepted one. (Could it be that prejudices have
>more to do with *some* of the criticism of Behe. I have seen scientists
>swallow dubious interpretations on much less *evidence* than Behe
>presented in Black Box.)
>
>You might as well drop this argument because it's a red herring. It's
>just another form of the fallacious technique of argument to the man.
>Behe's thesis stands or falls on other grounds.
>
>Russ
>Russell T. Cannon
>rcannon@usa.net
>
>
To the group:
Some interesting points on this thread. My thought for today: What
if the books of the New Testament had to have passed a peer review prior to
their "publication"? Certainly not all truth requires peer acceptance. And
if my understanding of biblical history and theology is anywhere close, I
would say, focussing exclusively on this one criterion, that successfully
passing a peer review should not necessarily be viewed as a virtue; and
failing a peer review should not necessarily be viewed as a vice.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rich Knopp, M.Div., Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics
Lincoln Christian College and Seminary
Lincoln, IL. 62656
"If God didn't exist, He would want us not to believe in Him."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *