This is rather interesting. Many evolutionists of the “Universe is a random accident without purpose” persuasion insist that intelligent design theories are not scientific. Why? Well, because its proponent scientists do not “publish peer-reviewed articles.”

But that is not so. “Peer-reviewed” articles by “intelligent design” scientists have been published… at least when they can get by the censors. You see, there are many that do not want and will not permit such articles to be published if they can stop it. But they cannot stop them all, even though they try.

Dr. Stephen Meyer recently had an article titled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" published in “Proceedings”. In it, Meyer 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.

Evolutionists objected claiming the article was “substandard” but the editor of “Proceedings”, which, by the way, is published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, confirmed that the article was put through the standard peer-review process and that the three reviewers were eminently qualified. But now that journal’s editor and the publication itself is under attack as well.

You see, evolutionists typically contend that the evidence for their theory is so strong that there is no room for further questions or inquiry. All opposing views are squashed. They will unreasonably contend that if not published and reviewed, then it cannot be science, but then if it is published and reviewed, then it still cannot be science if it does not fit with their prejudice.

Dr. Meyer himself has noted the double standard being applied to his article. "Until a few days ago," he says, "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."

Everyone seems to know the story about the Medieval Church hierarchy’s mistreatment of Galileo. That was sad. But similar behavior is seen today, and borrowing the words of the ancient prophet Nathan, we redirect them to the evolutionist today doing the same thing and we say, “Thou art the man!”

By Jon W. Quinn
The Final Page
From Expository Files 11.10; October 2004


 

https://www.bible.ca/