Carl Zimmer reports: "Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life."
BTW, Science is a top-notch scientific journal. It's on par with Nature and PNAS.
Yet Science has published some clunkers over the years - e.g. the Schön scandal, the Hwang Woo-suk controversy, and the ALH84001 meteorite debate.
Now Science has published this "arsenic-based life" paper as well. If the paper likewise turns out to be a clunker like many microbiologists and other scientists already think it is, then the journal will have another lead balloon on its record.
I don't know how Science's track record compares to other prestigious scientific journals. But I can't imagine it's favorable at this point.
Among my superiors and peers (biologists of various stripes), it is still very much a journal that one would want to get work published in.
ReplyDeleteA Science, Nature or PNAS paper can secure you post-doc or tenure-track position at a research university. Such a publication doesn't guarantee you tenure or continued success but it certainly opens doors in a way that a paper in something like the JNABS doesn't.
Mr. Fosi,
ReplyDeleteRespectability in the eyes of your peers, seeking glory in the eyes of man?
Steve Drake said:
ReplyDeleteMr. Fosi,
Respectability in the eyes of your peers, seeking glory in the eyes of man?
In and of itself, I don't see anything wrong with a Christian desiring to be published in a journal like Science, Nature, or PNAS in order to advance his or her career. I mean, I think it's quite possible for a Christian to desire career advancement and even prestige without likewise "seeking glory in the eyes of man." It depends in large part on a person's own motives.
For example, a Christian friend of mine who is known among many local Christians for her humility and godliness recently published in Nature. She desired to be published in Nature and advance her career. Now that it happened it looks like my friend will be in a very good position for her future career. And I don't doubt she'll use her position and prominence to better serve and witness for Christ.
So, with due respect, unless you happen to know him personally or something, I don't think it's fair to Mr. Fosi to ask him this sort of question since it's not as if you (or I) can discern his motives here. It's not as if what he's written above reveals anything about his character.
Of course, if you do know him personally, it'd be better to address this in private than in public.
Thank you Patrick,
ReplyDeleteDuly chastised. I somehow take it from your original post that you consider the magazines Science, Nature, et. al. as respectable journals within the secular scientific community. Does this tell me something about your allegiances, possibly, but I infer from your post about arsenic-based life that you are in some ways critiquing the journal itself as a purveyor of accurate knowledge on the origin of life from a secular, materialistic standpoint, no?
Steve: I was merely answering the possibly rhetorical question about what the journal's current status was. Personally,I would like to be involved in a Science publication if only for the opportunities such a thing can open.
ReplyDeletePatrick: Thanks for the post. :) I would have posted a reply sooner but a main firewall went down this morning which has cut off the entire university from the internet.
Steve Drake said:
ReplyDeleteDuly chastised. I somehow take it from your original post that you consider the magazines Science, Nature, et. al. as respectable journals within the secular scientific community. Does this tell me something about your allegiances, possibly, but I infer from your post about arsenic-based life that you are in some ways critiquing the journal itself as a purveyor of accurate knowledge on the origin of life from a secular, materialistic standpoint, no?
Thanks, Steve Drake.
Oh yeah, well, I still do agree it's a prestigious journal, but I just wonder whether it isn't beginning to decline in some way, at least in contrast to other prestigious journals like Nature or PNAS or, say, the JAMA or (my fave journal) the NEJM.
Of course, no journal is perfect. Everyone has published mistakes over the years. That's why journals often publish corrections to previous articles in later issues. Some are more substantial corrections than others. But Science seems to have published some fairly big ones or at least some contentious ones.
That's also why it's best to evaluate each paper on its own merits. Even papers published in prestigious journals like Science.
So in addition I wanted to point all this out since many militant atheists (for example) will throw out phrases like "it was published in a journal" as the be all, end all of discussion or to bully non-scientists into submission to their views or the like. But honest scientists know better.
I guess that's more or less what I was trying to get at.
Mr. Fosi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. I guess I only would wish that more men and women in your field of study (biology), especially those who are Christians and believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, would seek to honor God their creator by pointing out the incompatibility of 'evolutionary' biology with Scripture which 'Science' and 'Nature' seem so heartily to promote. Not saying you don't strive to do this, and if so, I applaud you in your efforts.
Blessings.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying and I agree that a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is fundamentally at odds with a belief in the evolutionary story of the origin of life. The history isn't the primary problem in my estimation, it's the theology.
If there was no Adam, there was no rebellious sin. If there was no sin, then Jesus wasn't doing what He thought He was doing. If Jesus was wrong then He wasn't/isn't God as the bible describes Him, making Jesus a liar or a mental case. It's a pretty easy chain of reasoning, though my synopsis probably has large holes.
The problem here is that it is up to the person in the situation (i.e. me) to determine what honors God in given circumstances. I know this sounds dangerously internalistic, but please finish reading before hitting the "comment" button.
Not everything that is true needs to be placarded at all times, which is a major theme of the recent posts here on TB regarding concealment.
The appropriate action may be apparent to someone outside the situation, but it really comes down to how the Holy Spirit leads individual believers. This is especially true for people, like me, who are still working through their thinking and their faith in Christ.
Yes, scripture is our authority and no, the HS won't contradict it, but it behooves brothers and sisters in Christ to keep their opinions in check and first examine the fruit of other Christ claimants before proffering judgement. Since you don't know me, I think you are right to keep your judgments tentative.
As we are instructed, we are to proclaim the truth in love trusting the HS to work to bring the seed we sow to fruition. That's what I try to do.
Knowing how badly I fail and how often I run for cover when I should stand on the truth, I am thankful Christ's death and resurrection are sufficient for me and all others who turn to Him.