Can you give examples of their work that supports evolution? If their published articles don't directly contradict evolution, that's not surprising. The militant evo's have effective censured anything that directly contradicts evolution.
To publish something that directly contradicts evolution and to say it directly contradicts evolution is to invite the kind of lynchmob attack from evolutionists that had the Biological Society of Washington distancing themselves from their editor and saying they had nothing to do with a paper.
Do you have a link to the list of names?
I read about this. Perhaps instead of the ideological witchhunt you propose, could it be that the Biological Society of Washington is distancing itself from the editor of the Proceedings because the paper itself wasn't up to the standards of the journal, and by allowing it to be published the editor was not doing his job?
Meyers paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized intelligent design since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for lifes history and diversity, then assert that an intelligent designer provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of intelligent design presented, just as in all previous work on intelligent design. Just as a detective doesnt have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesnt stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason is not a model.
...
The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (PBSW) is a respected, if somewhat obscure, biological journal specializing in papers of a systematic and taxonomic nature, such as the description of new species. A review of issues in evolutionary theory is decidedly not its typical fare, even disregarding the creationist nature of Meyers paper. The fact that the paper is both out of the journals typical sphere of publication, as well as dismal scientifically, raises the question of how it made it past peer review. The answer probably lies in the editor, Richard von Sternberg. Sternberg happens to be a creationist and ID fellow traveler who is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College in Tennessee. (The BSG is a research group devoted to the determination of the created kinds of Genesis. We are NOT making this up!) Sternberg was also a signatory of the Discovery Institutes 100 Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism statement. [3] Given R. v. Sternbergs creationist leanings, it seems plausible to surmise that the paper received some editorial shepherding through the peer review process. Given the abysmal quality of the science surrounding both information theory and the Cambrian explosion, it seems unlikely that it received review by experts in those fields. One wonders if the paper saw peer review at all.