Automoderated users, edit
1,837
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: − +
→Peer Review Controversy: Clarification of statement.
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.
Shortly thereafter, the journal's publisher released a statement retracting the article, stating it had not met the journal's 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 ==