A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the
complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert
testimony revealed that the peer review process is “exquisitely important” in the
scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and
to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to
study, testing, and criticism. (1:66-69 (Miller)). In fact, defense expert Professor
Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that
science must “publish or perish.” (22:19-25 (Behe)). Peer review helps to ensure
that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the
scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. (1:39-40
(Miller)). Moreover, peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a
scientific journal in the field, journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other
experts in the field and deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research
procedures, employed up-to-date methods, considered and cited relevant literature
and generally, whether the researcher has employed sound science.
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by
any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest
testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 87 of 139
17 The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an
article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein
features that require multiple amino acid residues.” (P-721). A review of the article indicates
that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted
that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary
mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically
realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756).
88
disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian);
11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “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.” (22:22-23 (Behe)).
Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers
supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum,
the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed.
(21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25
(blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed
articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular
structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to
failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific
research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
