Call it a row, a kerfluffle, a spat, or what have you. A linkurl:paper in __PNAS__; has whipped up some convoluted discussion in science and non-science blogs. Here's the basic run down: 1. A group publishes an linkurl:explanation; for the stepwise evolution of the flagellum, an interesting scientific question, which linkurl:intelligent designers (IDers); have long promoted as proof of irreducible complexity. 2. Scientists who have done a great deal of blogging to counter IDers' claims nevertheless linkurl:find a flaw; in the paper. 3. linkurl:IDers rally; behind anti IDers. 4. Anti IDers sensing that's just the sort of thing an IDer would do attempted to linkurl:head them off; at the pass. 5. linkurl:Hilarity ensues.; 6. Anti IDers focus on the details of the paper linkurl:here; and linkurl:here.; 7. IDers... seem to lose interest. Oddly I haven't seen any follow up posts. Questions remain: Will linkurl:web 2.0 take over; science publishing? will...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member?