Using the Discovery Institutes 'peer-review' process, This Blog is the 'Best Blog of 2015!' Really!

What I am talking about is this from the DI's Evolution 'News' and Views (E'N'V) site: "Happy New Year! Here Is #1 of Our Top Stories of 2015: A Scientific Debate that Can No Longer Be Denied".  The Discovery Institute has been re-hashing 2015 and re-running their top stories.  Before getting into the article itself, I have to share this with you.  Check out the note starting their top ten list (I added the underlining):

"Editor's note: Welcome to the traditional recounting of our Top 10 evolution-related stories of the past year, as compiled in a rigorous, peer-reviewed, strictly scientific manner by Evolution News staff. Presenting the most amusing, the most enlightening, and the most important news to come our way in 2015, the countdown culminates today. Happy New Year from your friends in the intelligent design community!"

Now what this shows me is that the Discovery Institute really has absolutely no idea what peer-review means.  Let's break this down a little bit.  The staff of E'N'V (yes, I put quotes around the 'N' in News because they rarely offer news, it's mostly Views), but it was the staff of the site who reviewed their own postings and self-determined the top story.  I have something that would be 'News' to them, but not to anyone who understands even a minimum of scientific methodology . . . That Is Not Peer-Review, not by a long-shot.  We've discuss their problem with comprehending peer-review just recently ("Is it Peer-Reviewed?").  Nice to have such clear-cut proof!

Seriously.  That's would be like me electing my small corner of the web as the 'Best Blog of 2015'!  Apparently, by their peer-review process, I can certainly do that!  I think I am averaging about 10,000 hits a year, pretty small potatoes.  Pharyngula, Pandas Thumb, The Sensuous Curmudgeon, and Exploring Our Matrix probably hit that in a day.  But by the DI's process, I can make this self-determination!  Since I am the only contributor to my blog, I can  . . . let me get the words straight . . .in a rigorous, peer-reviewed, strictly scientific manner by  . . . me . . .  I declare my blog the winner!  I plan on attending the obligatory award presentation with my tongue firmly embedded in my cheek!

As for the article itself, up to now I have been reading, and laughing, at the list but haven't felt the need to respond.  I was waiting for number 1, and here is it, the Re-boot of 'Darwin's Doubt'.  That's their top story for 2015!  So let me get this straight.  They released a book, 'Darwin's Doubt' that was so bad they had to follow it up with 'Debating Darwin's Doubt', an admission that the first book was so far off target they needed another 350 pages (half the size of the original) to address their critics . . . and yet still failed to address the actual criticisms of the original. I've posted about this before as well, "That's it? An admission of failure?", from this past July. 

I can't resist reminding anyone that the majority of the criticisms of the original book involved a severe lack of understanding of basic Paleontology.  Yet, for some strange reason, they didn't manage to find a 'Creation' Paleontologist to help them out.  You know, now that I think of it, I am sure kennie ham has one and he might have been willing to rent them out.  But unless they are planned on a third book to correct the problems with the one they wrote to correct the problems with the first book, I can't see them going to Answers in Genesis with their hat in their hand.