60
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 12:
Line 12: − Shortly thereafter, the journal's publisher released a statement retracting the article as it had not met its scientific standards and had not been properly peer reviewed. <ref>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON]</ref> The statement also endorsed American Association for the Advancement of Science's resolution that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.+
→Peer Review Controversy
In August of 2004, Meyer's article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, making it the first article in support of intelligent design to be published in a peer reviewed journal. <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]</ref>
In August of 2004, Meyer's article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, making it the first article in support of intelligent design to be published in a peer reviewed journal. <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories]</ref>
Shortly thereafter, the journal's publisher released a statement retracting the article as it had not met its scientific standards and had not been properly peer reviewed. <ref>[http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON]</ref> The statement also endorsed American Association for the Advancement of Science's resolution that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.
== References ==
== References ==