Discovery Institute Wants The Sympathy Vote

In the above video, posted on YouTube, the Discovery Institute questions the fairness of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Intelligent Design trial. No surprise there, since they lost miserably. The specific criticism is aimed at the Judge, who stated that no peer reviewed scientific papers have been published supporting ID. Here’s the text from the video’s description:

Judge Jones said that ID “has not generated peer-reviewed publications.”

FACT: Judge Jones is simply wrong. Discovery Institute submitted an amicus brief to Judge Jones that documented various peer-reviewed publications, which he accepted into evidence. This is a fact based question which is hard to get wrong. The fact is there are peer-reviewed papers supporting intelligent design. 

Like an obsessed conspiracy theory group, the DI is playing on the sympathy card by claiming that “the man” is keeping them down. (Yes, yes, all biologists are power hungry mad men, who want to dominate the world. They rake in millions of dollars, drive black BMW’s, and laugh demonically as they suppress the “truth”.) But we have to ask, what are these “peer-reviewed publications” the DI speaks of?

If you go to their link of pubilcations supporting Intelligent Design, you’ll find a list of books and articles, written or edited by members of the Discovery Institute, or pundits of ID.  For example,  MERE CREATION: SCIENCE, FAITH & INTELLIGENT DESIGN (William A. Dembski ed., 1998)is an anthology of opinion pieces, not a scientific journal. Their definition of “peer-reviewed” is literal, having their friends review their work, not actual scientists, who have a critical eye. The other publications are a mish mash of articles from philosophy, mathematics, or lesser known, and not at all reputable, magazines.  

 Talk Origins, the evolution website, has a fine analysis of the so-called “peer-reviewed” publications. Here’s what they say about Jonathan Wells’ contribution to science.

Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.

A meager list of forty or so publications, none vetted, is nothing to gloat about, or wave proudly in front of a judge or the public.


Filed under Intelligent Design

2 responses to “Discovery Institute Wants The Sympathy Vote

  1. I have notices that in a few cases where IDers claim a peer-reviewed journal publication the actual paper does not have an ID content. I can only assume that the authors are happy to give their names to the ID movement because of their religious beliefs, but their actual work is not specifically about ID and really shouldn’t be quoted as evidence for work supporting ID.

  2. Idetrorce

    very interesting, but I don’t agree with you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s