Then maybe Dr. Stephen C. Meyer ought to update his bio on the Access Research Network.
Contrary to Judge John E. Jones' opinion, there are at least seven peer-reviewed articles supportive of intelligent design, as Roger (and the judge) could have seen by reading our amicus brief in the Dover case, or check our website.
Well Dadgumit! Why didn't Prof. Behe say so?
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?-- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1
A. That is correct, yes.
... as some secret plan (now expanded by Downey to a "founding document") actually shows how puerile and paranoid Darwinists are when faced with opposition. Downey reports that the paper was stamped "TOP SECRET" and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION" ...
Yeah. They did overdo that ...
This isn't just wrong, it is stunningly wrong. There was no such conference about ID at Baylor University in 1992.
True enough. It was at SMU
ID originated long before that, ...
Thomas Aquinus and William Paley sure think so.
... at numerous places where scientists like Dean Kenyon, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and others were developing and researching the theory. Discovery's Center for Science & Culture was started in 1995 not 1998.
Yep. 1995.
But psst ...
I wouldn't say that too loud, guys ... I mean, Don'cha think seven research papers in eleven years is kinda thin?
Of course, back in 1995 they still had that pesky "Renewal" in there ;^)
He might or someone at ARN should, but does not make the article correct. BTW here is the text from the who is page for Meyer from ARN
Meet Stephen C. Meyer Ph. D., History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University, 1990. Steve is an associate editor of Origins & Design magazine, and an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College. He is a Senior Research Fellow of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Previous Page ] [ Return to About ARN page ] [ ARN home page ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.8.97
Notice the 4.8.97?
... detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
...supportive of intelligent design,
Notice a difference of degree?
This is what the judge states
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.
Check out the Discovery link. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640 . You can judge for yourself whether the publications are in a peer-reviewed publication.
True enough. It was at SMU
Nope still wrong. Wedge does not equal ID.
As for 1995 and your papers comment, similar to Wedge <> ID, Discovery <> ID.