Peer-reviewed ID articles
From EvoWiki
Claim
Intelligent design has been subjected to, and passed, the scientific peer-review process.
Source
The Discovery Institute cites a list of articles which are claimed to be peer-reviewed or peer-edited.
Responses
This list serves to illustrate two points. First, ID advocates do not have a good grasp of the point of peer-review; a large fraction of the publications cited by the Discovery Institute are not reviewed at all; a number are "self-reviewed" by people internal to the ID movement. Second, even given a generous definition of "review", the ID movement, as a whole, has generated extremely little research over the past five years.
"Peer reviewed" Books on ID from trade and university presses
Peer-review of books is entirely unrelated to peer-review of scientific journal articles. Publishers will print things they hope will sell well; the contents are understood to be the responsibility of the author alone. There is no formal review process in place, as there is for journals. Individual editors and publishers have discretion about whether or not to send a manuscript to an outside expert at all, and discretion to demand revisions from the author or not. This is true both at trade presses and university presses.
- W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
- Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996).
- During the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, Behe claimed on the witness stand that Darwin's Black Box passed scientific peer-review. It was later revealed what the review consisted of: the actual process is described here. At least five independent scientists reviewed Behe's book at the request of the publisher. Four of them were contacted in response to Behe's testimony. Michael Atchison did not read the book at all, but rather had a 10-minute phone conversation about it. Dr. Robert Shapiro said that he did review the book and while agreeing with some of his analysis of origin-of-life research thinks his conclusions are false, however, saying that he thought that Behe's book was the best explanation of the argument from design that was available. Dr. K. John Morrow disagreed with the book's conclusions but agreed with Shapiro and added that it is probably the best example of the argument from design that has been published since Paley's day. Another reviewer, Russell Doolittle, had a strongly negative informal review.
- Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).
- This book primarily criticizes the chemical origin of life. Scientists consider Origins of Life to be a separate topic from evolution.
- John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003)
Non-peer-reviewed books on ID from trade presses
There are no standards whatsoever for the review of books from popular presses, and the existence of such books provides no evidence whatsoever as to the quality of their contents. There are thousands of books in print, for example, on ESP, UFOs, palmistry, and astrology.
- Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).
- Regnery Publishing, in particular, is a right-wing publishing house with a number of pseudoscientific books in its catalog, including "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?" by Jonathan Wells, "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg, and "The 7-Minute Miracle: The Breakthrough Program to Banish Spot Fat Forever"
- William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002).
- Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985).
Articles on ID in peer-reviewed journals
Articles in peer-reviewed journals are the gold standard of scientific discourse. Their contents are not necessarily right or wrong, but the peer-review proceedure is meant to force the authors to present their claims clearly and honestly, to preempt evasiveness, and to catch obvious mistakes.
- S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,‿ Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.
- This article was not peer-reviewed according to the standards of the Biological Society of Washingon, but rather slipped into the journal by an editor without proper review. The publisher repudiated the article; the controversy is described here. The article recieved four citations: a news article and a letter in Nature, a article on the controvery in the Phi Beta Kappan, and article in the Journal of Church and State.
- M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,‿ Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
- This article was indeed peer-reviewed according to the normal procedures. The conclusions, however, were rapidly and voluminously disputed by others in the field, and the controversy was addressed by the editors here. The paper was cited three times: one rebuttal, Behe and Snoke's response to the rebuttal, and the editorial board's comment on the situation.
- W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,‿ Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
- Annual Review of Genetics does not publish new research results; it publishes review articles, which summarize the current state of thinking on some topic. Although the thrust of the article is in opposition to the modern evolutionary picture, nowhere does it mention "design". Citation count: 14, including a citation by Meyer's 2004 article, and a letter to Nature on the controversy.
- D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,‿ International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775. Citation count: 1.
- M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,‿ Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417.I.. Citation count: 1.
- M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,‿ Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002):325-342.
Citation count: 4, including a citation by a later Denton paper.
We would point out how short this list is. In addition to what is here, we note what is missing. Where are the peer-reviewed articles explaining that the Cambrian Explosion contradicts evolution? Where is the detailed scientific treatment of the flagellum? Where are the articles on hominid fossils? Where are the articles showing that speciation is impossible? Where is the mathematical discussion of Dembski's design filter?
Articles on ID in peer-reviewed anthologies
The standards for peer-review in anthologies are not well-defined. We do not know what process was used for the Dynamical Genetics review, for example.
- Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In i>Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)
- Five articles from Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003) (hereinafter DDPE)
Articles on ID in edited anthologies and conference proceedings
Again, anthologies and conference proceedings do not have a well-defined review process; some have no review at all.
- Four articles from W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse, eds., DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2004)
- This is an intelligent design conference, with published proceedings edited by two well-known intelligent design advocates.
- Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,‿ Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).
- This conference was not on evolution or descent, but primarily on biomimetics: understanding biological systems and applying their principles to engineering problems.
- MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998).
- This 15-article anthology is edited by a well-known intelligent design advocate.
Articles on ID in Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Journals
Peer-reviewed philosophy journal articles have no bearing on ID's status as science or non-science.
- Behe, M.J., Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 67:155-162 (March 2000)
- Craig, W.L., “God, Creation, and Mr. Davies.‿ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (1986): 168-175
- Craig, W.L., “Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design.‿ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (1988): 389-395.
- Craig, W.L., “The Anthropic Principle.‿ In The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: an Encyclopedia, pp. 366-368. Ed. G. B. Ferngren.
- Craig, W.L., “Design and the Anthropic Fine-Tuning of the Universe.‿ In GOD AND DESIGN: THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AND MODERN SCIENCE, pp. 155-177. (ed. Neil Manson. London: Routledge, 2003)
References
- [1]
- Citation counts are from the ISI Web of Science.
