Posted on February 21st, 2012

Something peculiar is going on; like we exist in parallel realities both operating in contradiction to each other and defying human perception.   I am not talking mere paradox but rather I am referring to a no-holds-barred contradiction without any hope for explanatory reprieve and which confounds the mind.

This is how I felt this morning over my bowl of Puffins and almond milk as I pondered the persistently eccentric debate regarding the existence of…. well, the existence of ID peer-reviewed articles. (Oh yes, if there were Geek Town I’d be mayor. Which didn’t the almond milk substitution in my breakfast cereal already betray that fact?)

For those who have never Wiki searched what exactly a peer-reviewed article is, it is a self regulating process used within an industry/discipline for insuring that published works follows accepted standards of quality.  Scientific journals employ networks of scholars to referee the articles submitted and blow the whistle on any that do not conform to the strict standards of the scientific community thereby barring their publication.

So how can there possibly be a debate about something that is immediately verifiable?  Either ID proponents can point to published peer-reviewed articles or not and that should settle it, right?

The Discovery Institute has done just that for many.  Noteworthy in fact is the celebratory milestone achieved just recently where the 50^th pro ID peer-reviewed article was published ( For a list of all 50, go to http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 ).

And yet there is a different reality, parallel to this one, interwoven throughout the blogosphere.   Lauri Lebo who has made a career of passionately covering the ID / Darwinism debates is one of those who stands bravely in defiance of fact and has boldly affirmed an absolute denial of the existence of any ID peer reviewed articles.  See for example:

–

We are left to only speculation as to why someone who is so close to the Darwinism / ID debate continues to ignore the putative existence of these articles. But unlike so many,  I am not so quick to criticize.   For whatever the reason she may have I nonetheless can’t help but to appreciate the advent of this kind of “scientific imagination” where with childlike wonder one can begin to explore and immediately experience a fresh new world unencumbered by the restrictive confines of facts and data.

So for those who are less inclined to jettison the ballast of hard data in their voyage to discover truth, then the matter is settled and they can progress  on toward the other aspects of the Darwinism / ID debate.   Others like our dear friend Lauri, however, have much more freedom to debate WHATEVER they want.   All journeys begin with a single step, and so it would seem some end there as well.

By:  Tyler Geffeney