BIO-Complexity

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Style over substance

Pseudoscience

Icon pseudoscience.svg
Popular pseudosciences
Random examples
Resources

BIO-Complexity is (or, perhaps more properly, was) an open access journal published by the Biologic Institute. The journal "aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life."[1]

The first two articles[2][3] exploit ambiguities in biochemical mechanisms in the typical "God of the gaps"-type argument, and neither provides evidence for an intelligent designer; neither even mentions a designer in the paper.[4] Both articles have authors from the Biologic Institute's editorial board[5] (which also includes ID leaders William Dembski and Michael Behe). The Discovery Institute lauded the journal's formation, implying that intelligent design papers were ideologically blocked from publication.[6]

Despite the intention to have one article per month, it took from May 2010 until December 2010 for another article to be published (by William Dembski, a member of the editorial team). Only one article was published in 2011, and three total are by Douglas Axe. For 2012, the Panda's Thumb blog points out

...the 2012 volume contains exactly two research articles, one “critical review” and one “critical focus”, for a grand total of four items. The editorial board has 30 members; they must be kept very busy handling all those papers.[7]

The journal looks to be headed in the direction of Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, the ID journal that lasted for three years.[8]

Despite its lackluster performance, the journal proclaimed, "Over 2,000 PDFs downloaded... In its first two months, BIO-Complexity has attracted a large readership."[9] The journal was panned in a review by young earth creationist and baraminologist Todd C. Wood:

In the larger scheme of things, I am sensing a discouraging pattern to BIO-Complexity publications. As I quoted above, the journal is supposed to be about "testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life," which is a great goal. But this is the fifth paper published by BIO-Complexity, and it's the fifth paper that focuses on perceived inadequacies of evolution. So when are we going to test "the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life?"[10]

If a young earth creationist doesn't like it, who does?

[edit] External Link

[edit] Footnotes

  1. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialPolicies#purposeAndScope
  2. Gauger, A. K. et al. "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness" BIO-Complexity 2010(2): 1-9.
  3. Axe, D. D. "The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds" BIO-Complexity 2010(1): 1-12.
  4. A review of the first article may be found here
  5. Douglas Axe and Ralph Seelke: [1]
  6. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/biocomplexity_a_new_peerreview.html#more
  7. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/12/the-sterility-o.html
  8. http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php
  9. [2] Accessed 9 September 2010.
  10. Wood, Todd C. "Protein evolution in BIO-Complexity." Todd's Blog. 13 April 2011. Accessed 10 July 2011.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support