NCSE Flip-flops As Controversy Over Peer-Reviewed Article Continues

Darwinists Like Peer-Review Except When They Don't
Discovery Institute
September 8, 2004
Print ArticleSEATTLE, SEPT. 8 – For the past few years the Darwinian lobbyists at the National Center for Science Education (NSCE) have falsely complained that scientists who support the theory of intelligent design don’t publish peer-reviewed articles and don’t make their case at scientific conferences.

"Now an article has appeared in a biology journal that even the NCSE can’t find a way to spin out of existence," responds Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC). "So what does it do? Claim the article shouldn’t have been published despite the fact it was approved by peer-review. Apparently politicians aren’t the only ones who do flip-flops."

The article in question, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," was written by CSC Director Dr. Stephen Meyer, and appears in the biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

Dr. Meyer’s article argues that the theory of intelligent design explains the origin of the genetic information in early animal forms better than current materialistic theories of evolution.

"It's too bad the Proceedings published it," lamented anthropologist Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, last week. "... This article is substandard science."

In an interview with The Scientist, the editor of The Proceedings Richard Sternberg, confrimed that Meyer’s article went through the standard peer-review process and the three peer reviewers of the paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research institute."

“Until a few days ago,” says Dr. Stephen Meyer, “Darwinists have argued that intelligent design isn’t science because it hasn’t been published in peer-reviewed journals. But now that an increasing number of scientists are making their case for design in scientific publications, Darwinists are ready to disown peer-review—temporarily, I’m sure.”

“The folks at the NCSE seem to embrace peer-review only when it confirms their pre-determined conclusions,” adds West. “Their goal isn’t peer-review, it’s censorship. They want to squelch the scientific debate. Fortunately, there are lots of scientists who still support free discussion.”

West also points out the spurious nature of the NCSE’s previous claim that supporters of intelligent design have not produced peer-reviewed publications. Mathematician William Dembski published a peer-reviewed monograph with Cambridge University Press, The Design Inference (1998). Biochemist Michael Behe has published his ideas recently in the peer-reviewed science journal Protein Science as well as previously in Philosophy of Science (2000) and And Stephen Meyer edited an entire volume of peer-reviewed articles with Michigan State University Press, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (2003).

To interview Dr. Stephen Meyer contact Robert Crowther at

About Discovery Institute
Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public-policy, think tank which promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty. Current projects include: technology, the economy, science and culture, regional transportation, and the bi-national region of "Cascadia."