The Debate Over Design Gains Momentum with a New Peer-Reviewed Science Journal: BIO-Complexity — April 30th, 2010 by Douglas Axe
It’s no secret that the scientific establishment is decidedly against not just the idea of intelligent design but also the idea of debating that idea. They just wish the whole subject would go away. That being the case, most establishment-minded scientists will, I suspect, thoroughly disapprove of BIO-Complexity, a new science journal that positively welcomes the scientific debate [1].
Now, I usually sympathize with those who want troublemakers to stop making trouble. Trouble has a bad name for good reasons. But on the other hand, we often find ourselves looking back with gratitude at certain troublemakers of the past—people who persisted in shaking things up, usually at great personal cost, until their cause won the day.
It seems to me that the trouble ID has brought on the science academy is of this more noble kind. Like all scientific controversies, this one is about ideas. And while ideas can be very powerful, they only become dangerous when no one is allowed to critique them openly. Where scrutiny is encouraged, the worst that an idea can be is false. Where it is forbidden, things can get much worse (as history shows).
With that in mind, if you examine the way scientists on both sides of the ID debate are conducting themselves, which side would you say is generally doing a better job of inviting critical scrutiny? Which side is earnestly seeking the strongest critique that the other side can offer? The answer should be obvious. It has to be the side that is promoting the debate, right? Or conversely, which side has little tolerance for dissent? That’s equally obvious. It’s the conflicted side—the one that is constantly switching between denying that the debate exists, trying to win it, and trying to shut it down.
Of those three conflicting options, only one—the desire to be proven right—has a legitimate place in science. The greatest moments in the history of scientific discourse happened when people were so committed to getting it right and so sure of being right that they welcomed critical scrutiny. They weren’t always right, of course, but there is nothing shameful in that. Quite the opposite, in fact. This contest of ideas, this rigorous exchange, is precisely how science is meant to work.
And that’s exactly what BIO-Complexity is about. Unlike most science journals, this one is founded on critical scientific exchange. That commitment began with an inclusive approach to recruiting scientists to serve as editors. As one of the people involved in the process, I can assure you that whatever the Editorial Board [2] ends up looking like when all the replies are in, the invitations went out to everyone we could think of with the expertise and the interest to make a useful contribution, regardless of their perspective on ID. Inevitably some will have been overlooked, and these too will be welcome later additions, pending board approval.
BIO-Complexity demonstrates its commitment to critical exchange in other ways as well. For every peer-reviewed article it publishes, it seeks a well-informed Critique of that article. And for each of these it seeks a Response from the original authors. Unlike the original articles they comment on, Critiques and Responses won’t be peer reviewed. The reason for this is that we want to give people appropriate freedom to state informed opinions boldly, without the level of caution that peer review tends to enforce. And on the subject of peer review, the policy of BIO-Complexity is to seek evaluation from experts who fall on both sides of the ID controversy.
Finally, you can have your say as well, because everyone who agrees to abide by three common-sense rules can post comments on anything and everything that BIO-Complexity publishes [3]. The rules are known as the three Rs: real names, respectful tone, and relevant focus. Published articles will be technical, so you’ll want to have some familiarity with their subject matter in order to post comments, but we guarantee there won’t be any viewpoint discrimination here. If you can find a polite way to say that someone’s conclusions look completely wrong, then go ahead and say it (and don’t be offended if someone politely returns the favor).
Enough said. Go explore. I can’t think of anything bad to say about BIO-Complexity, so I’ll leave that to others. Let them have their say, and then come back to the question of what science is all about. If you’re a big fan of science, I think you’ll end up being a big fan of BIO-Complexity.
[3] See registration information.