You take the term peer reviewed and harp on it as if it is the issue. I didn't argue and accepted your technical semantic correction. I said fair enough.
The issue is broader. What is the broader issue?
This started from the comments about Behe as a scientist. He has credibility in the field.
I'm not particularly interested in intelligent design as you are, but as far as I know the argument between the religious evolutionists, such as yourself, and IDers such as Behe has to do with flaws or weaknesses in various subsets of evolutionary theory -- the accuracy of molecular clocks for example.
IDers seem to use sequence data that doesn't fit with what would be predicted based upon specific theories as their best arguments for ID.
He published that sort of article in TIBS. Of course I'm sure it didn't say anything about ID in that review.
It's not a semantic correction. It's an important distinction. Words have meaning.
signature = Kansas City Royals?