Should Science Peer Review be replaced with Public Opinion? DI says yes . . . No Surprise There!

Doug Axe has a new post over on EnV: "Public Opinion Is the Ultimate Peer Review" and as you can guess I disagree with a lot of what he says.  He is, in my opinion, taking a commencement speech way out of context.  The original speech was printed up in the New Yorker, "The Mistrust of Science" and, in my opinion is a damn good speech.  Before getting into Doug's spin, I want to look at the commencement address myself.

The speaker, Atul Gawande, is a contributor to The New Yorker for quite a while.  He's also an author, a surgeon, a professor, the executive director of Ariadne Labs, a joint center for health-systems innovation, and the chairman of Lifebox, a nonprofit organization making surgery safer globally.  His main topic for this particular speech is dealing with the public's growing mistrust of science.  I am not terribly surprised that someone from the Discovery Institute is commenting on the speech, after all they are one of the main purveyors of scientific mistrust, are they not?  Let's see . . . evolution is ONLY a theory . . . teach the controversy . . . Darwin caused the Holocaust . . . let's re-baptize Jefferson, Wallace, even Superman as ID proponents . . .  they claim scientific status without using any scientific methodology . . . yea, definitely purveyors of scientific mistrust.

This is a great speech and one I hope the graduates take to heart.  Here is my favorite part, and I almost can't wait to get to the end so I can see if Doug responded specifically to:

"Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another."

If I didn't know better I would think I was reading a checklist of everything Doug and his Lords and Masters at the Discovery Institute (DI) do.   Remember, Doug works for the 'Biologics Institute', which is the pet 'laboratory' of the DI.  But you gotta look at this, tell me it's not the DI:

• Conspiracies:  How many times have we heard how the DI isn't taken seriously . . . how the DI can't get published in real scientific journals, or how 'Big Science' is keeping them out of the classroom.  Too many times to count . . . all I hear is George Carlin's 'It's a conspiracy, man!'
• Lack of a credible scientific track record:  Or do you think people like William Dembski, Casey Luskin, Paul Nelson, and even Michael Behe have actual scientific track records for ID.  Yes, even Professor Michael Behe who has done absolutely no science to support his idea of irreducible complexity -- he admitted so in court.
• Cherry-picking:  Although I think you can also add quote-mining here.  How often has the DI taken real scientific research and tried to frame it in a different way, claiming the research, or the scientists themselves are supporting ID.  Remember the list of 44 publications the DI presented to the Ohio State School Board claiming support for ID . . . and how the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) contacted the majority of the authors (26 of 34) and found the authors were surprised to learn their work could be construed to support ID in any fashion.  Doug's discussion of this speech is another good example, he pretty well ignored this part.
• False analogies and other logical fallacies:  The whole tautological argument of if it looks designed, it must be designed . . . of trying to equate the definition of 'theory' with the more precise definition of 'scientific theory' in order to artificially equate ID with real science.  I might so another post later to see how many logical fallacies I can attribute to the DI.
• Impossible research expectations:  Also known as 'moving the goalposts'.  How often has the DI bunch of talking heads demanded that evolution has to provide a complete evolutionary pathway in order to be deemed worthwhile . . . and yet ID isn't required to explain anything.  One set of rules for science and no rules at all for the DI.  Remember Behe during the Dover trial, when faced with over 50 peer-reviewed scientific publications refuting his claims of irreducible complexity he said that it was not enough!

In the next paragraph Gawande says:

"But when you see several or all of these tactics deployed, you know that you’re not dealing with a scientific claim anymore. Pseudoscience is the form of science without the substance."

The DI is hitting 5 for 5!  Pseudo-science at it's . . . well  . . . best!

The rest of the speech focused on how to deal with such mistrust.  I like his approach.  As anyone who has had an argument with a creationist, presenting the holes in their arguments doesn't do much good.  All you tend to do is drive them into a philosophical corner and they start spouting Bible verses, real and imaginary ones.  His approach is a more positive one, keep asserting the real science, the good science.  When someone quotes an anti-vaxxer, talk about the diseases nearly eradicated by vaccines.  When an anti-evolutionist goes off the deep end, talk about the benefits of evolution in medicine, food production, and the environment.

Now, Doug on the other hand presents a pretty typical commentary.  He strings together some personal revisionist history, some innocuous sounding phrases and then he completely glosses over the five ways to identify pseudo-scientists.  Yes, this is all he says about it:

"Gawande gave five handy tips for writing people off as pseudoscientists, but instead of alienating people by dismissing them in this way, what if we were to view public opinion as the ultimate form of peer review?"

Yes, I can see why he would want to get past this part very quickly, after all, the only thing he could possibly do is try and spin how the DI's tactics don't meet this critieria.  That would be a very hard sell.  So he takes a different tactic and ignores it.  Poor Doug!  Ignoring it doesn't mean each and every one of those pseudo-science pointers doesn't  apply, it only means he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to address them.  I really wish he had addressed them, because it would have been hilarious!  Although apparently he didn't read the rest of the speech for comprehension.  Gawande also said:

"Having a scientific understanding of the world is fundamentally about how you judge which information to trust. It doesn’t mean poring through the evidence on every question yourself. You can’t. Knowledge has become too vast and complex for any one person, scientist or otherwise, to convincingly master more than corners of it."

Yet Doug wants to make the general public the ultimate form of peer review?  So Gawande basically says it's not possible for any one person to be experts in all fields, Doug wants to make science answer to the general public.  Yes, as long as various polls show a majority supporting various forms of Creationism over science, Doug wants that to be the determining factor.  Of course once the pendulum swings and places folks like Doug in the minority, he'll be changing his tune really quickly.

The reality seems to be that no one appears to be able to critique intelligent design . .  after all how many times has the DI whined about any criticisms by claiming the critic 'didn't understand' ID . . . he's never going to allow ID to come under any form of peer review . . . at least not when the DI isn't holding the controls.  Think again how often they claim to have published 'peer reviews' that are nothing but comments by people who already support the DI and their pet version of Creationism?  We've discussed it many times, for example in "Is it Peer-Reviewed?"

But Doug and his buddies would love it if the scientific peer review process, which is not a perfect process by any means, was replaced with one more subject to the whims of the general public.  Think of how much more mileage the DI can get out of the opinion polls.  Suddenly popular opinion equates to peer review!  How ridiculous.

Yes, the scientific peer review process isn't perfect.  But is bypassing it for the court of public opinion an improvement?  I am no rocket scientist, so now my opinion is the equal of actual rocket scientists when it comes to rocket science?  I think not!  I'm sure I can tell them a few things about computer programming, repairing radar equipment, and maybe teaching community college classes, but when it comes to rocket science, the experts need to have a greater weight.  As Gawande said about the scientific community:

"Beautifully organized, however, it is not. Seen up close, the scientific community—with its muddled peer-review process, badly written journal articles, subtly contemptuous letters to the editor, overtly contemptuous subreddit threads, and pompous pronouncements of the academy— looks like a rickety vehicle for getting to truth. Yet the hive mind swarms ever forward. It now advances knowledge in almost every realm of existence—even the humanities, where neuroscience and computerization are shaping understanding of everything from free will to how art and literature have evolved over time."

Let's see Doug discuss all the advances in scientific knowledge that have come out of the Discovery Institute?  See what I mean?  For an organization that has yet to advance any knowledge, Doug is recommending that we abandon the current peer review process for a public opinion type review.  Does he really think this would be an improvement?

In my opinion, this is nothing but an effort to artificially elevate ID.  Think about it, who is critiquing ID?  Pretty much every scientist, right?  So how to best address all that criticism?  Rather than actually do the scientific work that might support ID, they want to remove the peer review process and water down science.  I guess that's about the only way ID will gain any ground.  After all, they sure aren't doing it in Doug's lab.

Why would the Discovery Institute call it 'Censorship'

A few hours ago I posted "Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?", a post about how no one is actually censoring the Discovery Institute (DI), just presenting an opposing view.  One of my acquaintances read it and dropped me a line that asked "If they aren't being censored, why do they call it censorship?"  Rather than answer it in an email, I am going to address it in a post.  I do highly encourage people to leave comments instead of emails.  That way we can have an exchange in the open.  But that being said, why in the world would an organization like the Discovery Institute call opposition censorship?

Simple answer, it's all about perception.  You see if the DI complained about someone, pretty much anyone, airing an opposition viewpoint, people who call their complaining -- whining.  I mean how can you argue about an opposing view with any teeth in it and not come off as nothing but a whiner?  But . . . if you can build a perception that the person, or group, expressing an opposing view is doing something else, then you have a chance of gaining some level of public support.  So by categorizing people like Jerry Coyne and Neil deGrasse Tyson as censors, they are trying to create an automatic negative perception.  After all everyone knows censorship is usually considered a bad thing, right?

Actually this is a pretty common tactic.  I mean what negative activity of the last century and a half has the DI been trying to associate with Darwin and the Theory of Evolution?  How about all of them!  The obvious one is the association their pet pseudo-historians are always trying to sell is blaming the Nazi's, Word War II, and the Holocaust on Darwin and the Theory of Evolution.  After all, everyone knows the Nazis were bad, so if anyone buys into their bogus connection, it casts Darwin in a negative light.  Of course, it's all marketing.

But it's not just big things, last year in the post that awarded Tyson their 'Censor of the Year' award, they actually tried to blame a shooting in NC on the fact the shooter was an apparent atheist, actually calling him a militant atheist and reminded that he

" . . . is accused of murdering three Muslim students. Since the triple slaying is potentially explosive in an international context, social and other media are abuzz with analysis of the man's views on religion."

So therefore Atheism = violence, so being a theist is a good thing, right?   But . . . if you read the article giving that dubious honor to Tyson, why would an atheist who committed murder be a candidate for censor of the year?  They bring it up, but never support their supposed thinking.  What it looked like they were trying to do is make a connection between Tyson and his less-than-flattering comments during Cosmos about religion and violence done by an apparent atheist.  Did they address Tyson's comments about some of the negative impact religion and religious organizations have had on science?  No, it's easier to make a connection between Tyson and a murderer, you get more mileage out of that.  Even if they deny that was their intention, writing the post the way they did makes the connection for some people.

The DI are masters at Public Relations and Marketing.  Anyone who says something negative about the DI or Intelligent Design is automatically a target.  Do you remember little gem from 2006: "Canadian Quilters Attack Intelligent Design" from Evolution 'News' and Views and "“ID is a Myth” Quilt Wins National Contest" from Uncommon Descent.  Yes, a quilter . . . a single quilter did a quilt that made fun of Intelligent Design . . . and she is suddenly part of a cabal of Canadian Quilters who are attacking ID.  See my point?  They can't even allow someone to make a little fun of their pet version of Creationism without trying to gain some PR mileage out of it.  A humorous quilt is suddenly an attack!

That's why the DI calls Jerry Coyne and Neil deGrasse Tyson their 'censors of the year'.  It's because it offers them a PR opportunity.  Jerry and Neil did nothing that can be remotely called censorship . . . . unless you change the definition of censorship to the airing of an opposing view.  That's also why they complain about the lack of adoption of ID as an opposing view to evolution as a matter of free speech and academic freedom.  It has nothing to do with the lack of science supporting ID, no that wouldn't be something they can whine about.  But if they accuse people of denying free speech and schools going against academic freedom, they can market more and more.  The minor detail that no one is abrogating their right to free speech and that pseudo-science isn't covered under academic freedom having absolutely nothing to do with it makes no difference to them, it's all marketing.  There are plenty of examples:

• They want ID to be treated as a theory, so instead of doing any actual science, they simply market it as fait accompli and dare anyone to claim it's not a theory.  Of course they forget to use the definition of a scientific theory, but why let details get in the way of their 'reality'.  
• Guillermo Gonzalez doesn't get tenure at ISU and it must be because of his support for ID, not because he failed in his duties, again why bother with facts!  
• Nathaniel Abraham gets fired from his job as an evolutionary biologist can't possibly be because of his refusal to do his job, it must be because he supports Creationism/ID.  
• David Coppedge get fired as part of a downsizing and it must be because he supports ID.  His appeal and lawsuit denied because of him trying to use his workplace to force his religious beliefs on his co-workers and there were numerous complaints.  Again, facts . . . the DI doesn't need them!
• Can't get your pseudo-science published in real scientific journals, so just open your own journal and redefine peer-review to mean 'having a group of people who already agree with your religious ideas say nice things'.  The minor detail that real peer-review and your pseudo-peer-review have nothing in common matters not at all.
• Look at the recent debacle they are crying about, the United Methodist Church denying them a table at the UMC's General Conference, something well within their rights to do, especially given their support for actual science.  It's called a 'banning' in a multitude of posts on any site where the DI has influence.

Hopefully now you understand why the DI would call opposing views as censors.  A couple of last thoughts.  Since the DI hasn't been able, or apparently willing, to substantiate ID with anything resembling science, they have nothing other than marketing.  Which could also explain why they have so few scientists working there.  It's mostly lawyers and philosophers.

It also explains why when I read anything coming from a DI-related source, like Evolution 'News' and Views, I try and investigate the real source of the issues.  The DI has proven over and over again that they have no credibility when presenting anything that it will even resemble objectivity.  I mean Canadian Quilters on the attack?  Seriously!

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.

Discovery Institute Omerta?

I'm a little torn reading this "Creationism Whistleblower: ‘Academic Freedom’ Is Sneak Attack on Evolution" mainly because I don't want to be guilty of one of the things I have said about many others, usually creationists.  One of my issues is that all too often when someone reads something that agrees with them, usually in a philosophical sense, they immediately voice their agreement with it.  Nothing wrong with that.  But all too often the next step is they are willing to say incredibly ridiculous things to defend it for no other reason that the philosophical agreement.

Over on Topix, for example, there is a poster whose main defense of his religious beliefs is the 'Law of Biogenesis' which, according to him, completely disproves the Theory of Evolution and thereby making his religious belief the only possible way life could have formed on Earth.  He conveniently ignores what the 'law' actually addressed, which was the belief in 'spontaneous generation' which claimed that life arises from non-life, addressing things such as maggots 'appearing' in meat, fleas came from dust, molds in bread, and so forth.  Pasteur repeated and expanded upon earlier experiments that proves the source of these forms of life were not inanimate materials.  The poster, who calls himself 'marksman11' co-opted the term and completely changed what Pasteur did in order to rationalize his religious belief in a form of Creationism.

For another example, look at the lengths little kennie ham and his Hamians over at Answers in Genesis will go to support their narrow beliefs . . . I mean 'rafts of trees knocked down by 'The Flood' to transport animals all over the world' as a rationalization for geographical biodiversity?  Seriously?  So when I read this article, I wanted to make sure I wasn't falling into the same trap . . . because I completely agree with every word said! 

If you aren't familiar with Zach Kopplin, he first came into public view fighting the poorly named "Louisiana Science Education Act" as a high school student in Louisiana.  He's been publicly recognized and awarded for his tireless efforts in support of science education and hopefully one day his efforts to have that ridiculous bill repealed will be successful!  In this article on 'The Daily Beast' site he interviews an unidentified former-employee of the Discovery Institute and that employee reveals a number of things that are really no surprise.  I don't normally like unnamed sources, but I also understand why some people wouldn't want to become a public face.  In all honestly I have no idea why anyone would want their  . . . 15 minutes of fame . . . in the first place.  Guess I am not wired that way.  But some of the things they say are things that I, and many others, have been saying for years.  Here is a small sample:

“DI [The Discovery Institute] is religiously motivated in all they do,”

“Critical thinking, critical analysis, teach the controversy, academic freedom—these are words that stand for legitimate pedagogical approaches and doctrines in the fields of public education and public education policy,  . . . That is why DI co-opts them. DI hollows these words out and fills them with their own purposes; it then passes them off to the public and to government as secular, pedagogically appropriate, and religiously neutral.”

Zach closed his article with a great line:

"Real academic freedom is important, but creationists like the Discovery Institute have corrupted its meaning to miseducate children." 

My only addition to the list of words the DI hollows out and fills them with their own purposes is 'Peer-Reviewed', which I discussed in a post just yesterday (Is it Peer-Reviewed?).  Keep up the good work Zach!  Would it be appropriate to say you are a credit to Louisiana High School education?  Or would it be more appropriate to say you are a credit in spite of a Louisiana High School education?

In any event, I do so agree with Zach, and this former DI employee, and not just philosophical grounds.  All of the evidence supports everything they have said.  The Wedge Strategy Document clearly shows the religious purpose guiding the DI.  They use of tactics like "Teach the Controversy" and "Academic Freedom" campaigns are well documented.  So it doesn't look like I am falling into that philosophical trap because unlike folks like 'marksman11' and kennie ham, evidence trumps superstition!

Now the DI has written about Zach many, many times, mostly by one of their shills, davey klinghoffer.  In fact just this past May davey once wrote a post that was an 'Open Letter to Zach's parents'.  In it he pretty much whined about their son being used by the apparently nefarious  'Darwin Lobby' and Zach's apparent refusal to allow the DI to 'educate' him.  Klingy closed with this:

"My suggestion? Have a talk with your son about his education, and about an unfortunate reality of the world, that zealots with a political agenda will try to use an enthusiastic person like himself to their own ends, which may not include a high regard for truth telling. If I were his father, I would want to see my boy buckle down, get his degree, prepare for a career, do something useful with his life, and something honorable."

I feel this was a pretty low point in klingy's career as a DI shill, but I am sure he'll stoop to lower tactics eventually, if he hasn't already.  Obviously Zach has been getting under their skin pretty regularly.  They've written about him over 20 times in the past couple of years.  I don't know if his parents ever saw this particular piece of trash, but I would be curious if they had any sort of reaction.  Back in 2011 Zach's father did have this to say:

"Asked about his son's political initiative, Kopplin called his eldest child "smart, courageous and relentless."

"Every 17-year-old, you know, they are quite independent thinkers," he said. "I'm extraordinarily proud of him. He's a strong-willed young man, and I'm proud of him." (For Kopplins, lobbying in state Capitol will be a family affair)

If Zach was a son of mine I would be proud of him on many levels.  First of all he is standing up for what he believes in, he's supporting actual science and science education, and he's not allowing the marketing efforts of the DI from succeeding in their pseudo-science attempts to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. 

The fun part will be seeing what kind of response Zach gets from the Discovery Institute.  Will they ignore it or will they play the 'disgruntled employee' card?  I wonder if any other former employees will come forward, or does their employment contract prohibit them from saying anything, sort of a Creationism Omerta clause?  We shall see!

Is it Peer-Reviewed?

One of my usual haunts is the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'News' and Views (E'N'V) site.  On it I read about all the cutting edge marketing the DI spews forth, offering much more Views than anything resembling News.  Caught this one "Peer-Reviewed Article on Transposable Elements Cites "Irreducible Complexity" and Other "Teleologic" Factors" and it drives a question, at least from my point of view, is this article really peer-reviewed?

The article little casey luskin is referencing is one posted in 'eLS', which is a online cite-able source published by Wiley as part of their Wiley Online Library.  One point to make, there is nothing in the Wiley Online Library that requires submissions for publication to be peer-reviewed, absolutely nothing.  So the fact it is available to be cited through Wiley doesn't mean that it is actually peer-reviewed, it also doesn't mean anyone has cited it as a reference.  So by what standard does little casey support this being a 'peer-reviewed' paper?  Absolutely none.  Little casey calls it peer-reviewed, but that doesn't mean it's actually peer-reviewed by the same standard actual science papers are peer-reviewed.

Over recent years the DI has been self-identifying a small number of papers as peer-reviewed, but the reality is their peer-review process is considerably different than the scientific community's peer-review process.  We've noted it time and time again, and frequently used this quote from Dr. Chancey, Chair of the Religious Studies Department at SMU said:

"Many religious groups-Christian and other-do not regard evolutionary theory as a threat. For many people of faith, science and religion go hand in hand. When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."

I added the underline to make my point.  ID 'theorists' would be welcome to submit their work for peer review if they are willing to play by the same rules. So again, by what standard does little casey support his claim of peer-review?  He doesn't.  Which leads me to believe that there is no standard!

Here is another example of using a term, like 'peer-review' and then sneaking in behind it and changing the definition.  I've noted in the past that they have been doing this for years by re-defining terms like 'Theory', 'Academic Freedom', and 'Free Speech'.  Now we can certainly add 'Peer-Review' to the list.

How the scientific community defines peer-review is surprisingly simple:

"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility." (Wikipedia: Peer-Review)

In other words, your work gets reviewed by others with similar qualifications in the same field, your peers.  Is this what happens when the Intelligent Design community peer-reviews?  Case in point the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy.  While the DI likes to cite the Meyer's paper as 'peer-reviewed', the journal in question rescinded the paper saying that the actual peer-review process was circumvented by Richard Sternberg.  In addition, Sternberg did the review in spite of the fact he is unqualified to review any paper on that subject, in other words he's not a qualified peer -- by science's standards.  So that tends one to think that the DI's definition of peer-review is more like:

'Getting a few people who already agree with you to say or write some positive comments about it.  Then  claim peer-review status because the people who already agree with you are your peers within the ID Movement.'

Certainly not the same thing as the scientific community.  Here is another take on Peer-Review, this one from the DI itself.  They have a link to "Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design" where they discuss and list what they claim are peer-reviewed papers that support ID.  Here is a couple of paragraphs that I found interesting:

"Other scientists around the world are also publishing peer-reviewed  scientific papers supportive of intelligent design. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.

These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology, Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science."

What I noticed was that they claim that other scientists have published peer-reviewed scientific papers in support of ID in the first paragraph . . . and then they justify that these, and other, scientists' have had work published in a number of very influential scientific journals and give a pretty impressive list.  Do you see a small disconnect?  It stood out to me.  While these two paragraphs imply one thing, do they actual say that any of these 'peer-reviewed scientific papers supportive of ID' were actually published in any of those prestigious journals?  No they do not!  There is a difference with what they are implying and what they are actually saying!

To be sure, if they ever managed to get something honestly peer-reviewed, and by that I am using the scientific communities standards of peer-review, they will be doing more than just using the term as a label, the way little casey does.  They will be crowing from every damn platform they can find.  But since that hasn't happened, I will continue to question their use of the term 'peer-review'.  It reminds me of "That's it? An admission of failure?" when we looked at who was addressing the critiques from "Darwin's Doubt", all Meyer's friends from the Discovery Institute.  Why didn't they call that one 'peer-reviewed' as well?  Maybe that was too obvious, even for the DI.

Since when is Richard Sternberg known as an 'Evolutionary Biologist'?

You might criticize me for not listening to the audio, but I really triggered on the title: "Listen: Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg on the Problem of Whale Origins".  Since when is Richard Sternberg known as an 'Evolutionary Biologist'?

Biologists at places like Answers in Genesis (AiG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) refer to themselves as 'Creation Biologists', and while those two terms really don't work well together, that's their title.  Shouldn't Richard be calling himself a 'Intelligent Design Biologist'?  After all he works at the Discovery Institute's pet lab (Biologic) and is working on a 'research' project funded by the DI. 

Calling yourself an Evolutionary Biologist usually has meaning that involves an acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, not every nook and cranny, but the overarching theory.  The signatories of Project Steve put it well with this part of their statement (I added the underlining):

"Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. "

It doesn't seem to me that a signatory of the DI's dissent petition would agree with the Project Steve statement.  If I recall, Sternberg was also one of the many signatories . . . well you can read it here:

"Also, in early editions of the list [the dissent petition], Richard Sternberg was described as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate. At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a minor biology journal, where he played a central role in the Sternberg peer review controversy. Later versions of the list dropped mention of Sternberg's affiliation with the Smithsonian in favor of Sternberg's alma maters, Florida International University and Binghamton University. "

I don't know, but it all seems very misleading to me, but then I often feel misled when reading things from the Discovery Institute.  Maybe Richard just hasn't run out of business cards from one of his previous jobs, you know the ones before the peer review controversy?

Is Science Broken?

This is an honest question, not an easy question, but an honest one.  Finding an answer will take more than just asking a bunch of people and polling the results.  Gathering results like that would get you data, but would it answer the question?  There is a big difference between an answer and just having data.  You also have to pay close attention to many variables and still you may only end up with a small part of the eventual answer.  There are a lot of reasons, but the bottom line, science isn't easy to do.  It's also not always easy to explain.  Even trying to answer a question like this can show you that it's really tough.

Supposed you went to the Discovery Institute and polled people who worked there, what do you think the answer would be?  Their poster, Kirk Durston, would certainly tell you everything that he thinks is wrong with science, real and imagined, and certainly describe any negative until it's insurmountable.  Of course he doesn't offer any suggestions, his focus is to make people scared of science.

I came across an interesting article, "Science Isn’t Broken" by Christie Aschwanden.  It unflinching looks are some of the real problems within science and, more than Kirk ever did, explains how and why some of them occur.  She also goes into some of the changes that have been happening to help improve science and scientific methodology.  It's a long article and one well worth a read.  It repeats something that anyone who is objective about science realizes, that while it's not perfect, it s a self-correcting activity.

On the opposite side is an article on Evolution News and Views which grabs one of the examples Christie Aschwanden discussed and tries to turn it into some backhanded support for Intelligent Design, "Some Scientists Say Intelligent Design Isn't Science -- Until They Have to Use It Themselves."  One line really caught me:

"Many scientists claim intelligent design is not science"

That's a lie!  What almost all scientists say is that Intelligent Design is not science, they do not say that intelligent design isn't science.  Intelligent Design (ID) is a movement, a modern re-telling of the Watchmaker Analogy.  ID is not the same thing as intelligent design.  In all honesty, if we built buildings using Intelligent Design, I doubt they would hold up for very long, even if they could stay up long enough to be finished.  Think about it, let's use concrete that performs based on the wishes of a deity instead of the intelligently designed by real science formula and processes that make the many types of concrete we use in construction. 

Human beings design things all the time, some intelligently and some less-than-intelligently.  Many things work, but then I drive past a car jacked up 36 inches in the air running on 14 inch tires at 70 miles per hour on the freeway and all I can do is ask "What were they thinking?"  Architecture and Engineering run on intelligent design, but it has very little to do with Intelligent Design.

It's really funny how whoever wrote this one tried to twist around the idea of intelligence and design into an effort to support Intelligent Design.  There was no identified author, which isn't too uncommon.  I do wonder why no one takes credit for this one.  But aside from that, do they really not understand the difference between intelligent design and Intelligent Design?

Seriously?  The DI doesn't recognize the difference between something intelligently designed and their teleological argument for the existence of God?  Science works, the only thing intelligently designed about Intelligent Design is the marketing campaign.  Honestly, it should be taught in marketing classes, not so much as a success at selling their ideas, but from the point of view of how well-funded nonsense can do some actual damage to science and science education.

So back to the original question, is Science broken?  No!  It's not perfect, it has issues, but what doesn't, religion?  it's going to take people interested in improving science to fix issues as they happen.  What they will certainly do is intelligently design processes and changes to help deal with issues within science.  But just because these changes will be intelligently designed doesn't mean that they will use Intelligent Design.  What doesn't help are organizations that inflate real issues to the point they sound catastrophic so they can try and wedge their religious ideas to take the place of real science.