Frankly, a "lack of controversy" in Journals that admittedly believe creationism to be pseudo-science is about as convincing as a "lack of controversy" at the Republican convention.ScottKoranda wrote: The enumeration of the number of articles is one possible metric to demonstrate a lack of controversy, and it offers no suggestion as to whether or not science as a discipline or endeavor is democratic.
Put another way, the current state of any collection of scientific journals cannot be used to argue that the advancement of science is or is not a democratic process subject to popular notions of fairness.
The only reason to argue a lack of controversy is to imply that scientific principles are justified by popular vote among scientists. I'm glad this was the standard practice in the past, when "commonly accepted" truths were challenged. Flat earth, geo-centrism (sp?), phlogiston, Lamarckism, etc were successfully challenged.
Counting articles to demonstrate a "lack of controversy" and use it as support is disingenuous. Science can just as easily be influenced by outside philosophical biases as any other intellectual field. Some argue the creationists are attempting this. Some see that atheists have already succeeded. But to adopt the profession as the intellectual equivalent of Plato's Guardians is wrong, and will lead to the same problems as in government.
Skepticism can just as easily be applied to scientists as anyone else.
