February 13, 2008

Mohamed Warda Responds to Inquiry About Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence.

Mohamed Warda, one of the authors of Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence, responded to an inquiry by The Guardian's James Randerson. The full story can be found in his blog, but Warda's rather bizarre reply bears repeating here as well:

The problem is that we described in very clear and definite way the disciplined nature that takes part inside our cells. We supported our meaning with define proteomics evidences that cry in front of scientists that the mitochondria is not evolved from other prokaryotes. They want to destroy us because we say the truth; only the truth.

Science is about to be in great danger! It is sound more likely that the history repeats itself when one gave the evidence of the globe nature of the earth and then he was greatly humiliated and punished for saying the truth.

I not burrow [sic] any sentences from others.

It is not the problem of burrowing [sic] sentences but rather the shock that obligate them to rethink in many scientific disciplined to be more realistic and more fruitful for the behalf of mankind and not like the current feverish race and debate to catch "How" without "Why".
In other words, Warda is still insisting that the fact that there are orderly processes in the mitochondrion — nobody can deny that — proves the existence of divine wisdom, of a creator, and of a soul. He still offers no specific evidence for that; his argument is essentially the same as Michael Behe's utterly discredited argument from "irreducible complexity." In fact, the paper was a review; it didn't comprise any novel research at all. In other words, inserting such an assertion appears to be Warda expressing an opinion about other people's research that none of those researchers saw as being evidenced in their work. It seems that it is only Warda who felt the need to posit supernatural intervention.

Warda is also denying plagiarism, despite the fact that it is thoroughly documented that the review contained long passages lifted wholesale from previous papers that Warda didn't see fit to reference.

The question still remains as to what happened at Proteomics that allowed this junk to make it past review. Michael Dunn isn't talking just yet. Again, more about this on Randerson's blog.

Some months ago, I read an article about pressure from Islamic fundamentalists on the sciences in the Middle East and North Africa. I wish I could remember the magazine and title; I read it on paper, not online, so I don't have it bookmarked. Nonetheless, what Warda says in his reply is extremely reminiscent of what one of the fundamentalists in that article had to say about science. The gist of the piece was that there is an active effort to make science conform to ideas in the Koran and that researchers who don't do this often find themselves out of work or worse these days. Egypt was one of the countries specifically mentioned in that article (I recall Tunisia and Jordan being mentioned in it as well).

What do I think should happen here? I think there should be a big black mark on Warda's name as a scientist. He plagiarized the work of others and willfully twisted the findings of still more reputable scientists in order to suit an ideological agenda. No respectable journal should publish his work, and no journal that publishes his work should be seen as reliable.

Sphere: Related Content