A List of Peer-Reviewed Articles on Intelligent Design

by Max Andrews
There’s been a long running tradition in the Darwinian anti-ID camp propounding that there are no published peer-reviewed papers on intelligent design.  Ever since this mantra was first popularly proclaimed they’ve been wrong.  Below is a list of peer-reviewed articles cataloged by the Discovery Institute.  For abstracts and more on the articles please visit their site.

Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals, Conference Proceedings, or Scientific Anthologies.

  1. David L. Abel, “Is Life Unique?,” Life, Vol. 2:106-134 (2012).
  2. Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
  3. Douglas D. Axe, Philip Lu, and Stephanie Flatau, “A Stylus-Generated Artificial Genome with Analogy to Minimal Bacterial Genomes,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(3) (2011).
  4. Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating?,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(2) (2011).
  5. Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).
  6. Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
  7. Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
  8. Douglas D. Axe, “The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(4):1 (2010).
  9. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,”Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).
  10. George Montañez, Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010(3) (2010).
  11. William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).
  12. Douglas D. Axe, “The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (1) (2010).
  13. Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,” 42nd South Eastern Symposium on System Theory, pp. 290-297 (March, 2010).
  14. David L. Abel, “Constraints vs Controls,” The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 4:14-27 (January 20, 2010).
  15. David L. Abel, “The GS (genetic selection) Principle,” Frontiers in Bioscience, Vol. 14:2959-2969 (January 1, 2010).
  16. D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman, and T. Todd, “The Coherence of an Engineered World,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(1):47–65 (2009).
  17. Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).
  18. William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 2647 – 2652 (October, 2009).
  19. William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 39(5):1051-1061 (September, 2009).
  20. David L. Abel, “The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP),”Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6(27) (2009).
  21. David L. Abel, “The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Vol. 10:247-291 (2009).
  22. David L. Abel, “The biosemiosis of prescriptive information,” Semiotica, Vol. 174(1/4):1-19 (2009).
  23. A. C. McIntosh, “Information and Entropy – Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(4):351-385 (2009).
  24. A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,”International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).
  25. David L. Abel, “The ‘Cybernetic Cut’: Progressing from Description to Prescription in Systems Theory,” The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, Vol. 2:252-262 (2008).
  26. Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).
  27. Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).
  28. Michael Sherman, “Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution,” Cell Cycle, Vol. 6(15):1873-1877 (August 1, 2007).
  29. Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).
  30. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz-Albert Becker, “Carnivorous Plants,” inHandbook of Plant Science, Vol 2:1493-1498 (edited by Keith Roberts, John Wiley & Sons, 2007).
  31. David L. Abel, “Complexity, self-organization, and emergence at the edge of chaos in life-origin models,” Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 93:1-20 (2007).
  32. Felipe Houat de Brito, Artur Noura Teixeira, Otávio Noura Teixeira, Roberto C. L. Oliveira, “A Fuzzy Intelligent Controller for Genetic Algorithm Parameters,” inAdvances in Natural Computation (Licheng Jiao, Lipo Wang, Xinbo Gao, Jing Liu, Feng Wu, eds, Springer-Verlag, 2006); Felipe Houat de Brito, Artur Noura Teixeira, Otávio Noura Teixeira, Roberto C. L. Oliveira, “A Fuzzy Approach to Control Genetic Algorithm Parameters,” SADIO Electronic Journal of Informatics and Operations Research, Vol. 7(1):12-23 (2007).
  33. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Kurt Stüber, Heinz Saedler, Jeong Hee Kim, “Biodiversity and Dollo’s Law: To What Extent can the Phenotypic Differences betweenMisopates orontium and Antirrhinum majus be Bridged by Mutagenesis,”Bioremediation, Biodiversity and Bioavailability, Vol. 1(1):1-30 (2007).
  34. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology, Vol. 1:601-607 (2006).
  35. David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
  36. David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “More than Metaphor: Genomes Are Objective Sign Systems,” Journal of BioSemiotics, Vol. 1(2):253-267 (2006).
  37. Øyvind Albert Voie, “Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent,”Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol. 28:1000–1004 (2006).
  38. Kirk Durston and David K. Y. Chiu, “A Functional Entropy Model for Biological Sequences,” Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete & Impulsive Systems: Series B Supplement (2005).
  39. David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, Vol. 2(29):1-15 (August 11, 2005).
  40. John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Vol. 98: 155-166 (2005).
  41. Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
  42. Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
  43. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity,” in Valerio Parisi, Valeria De Fonzo, and Filippo Aluffi-Pentini eds., Dynamical Genetics (2004).
  44. Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).
  45. John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (“DDPE”) (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 2003).
  46. S. C. Meyer, “Dna and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification and Explanation,” DDPE, pp. 223-285.
  47. M. J. Behe, “Design in the Details: The Origin of Biomolecular Machines,”DDPE, pp. 287-302.
  48. P. Nelson and J. Wells, “Homology in Biology: Problem for Naturalistic Science and Prospect for Intelligent Design,” DDPE, pp. 303-322.
  49. S. C. Meyer, M. Ross, P. Nelson, P. Chien, “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang,” DDPE, pp. 323-402.
  50. W. A. Dembski, “Reinstating Design Within Science,” DDPE, pp. 403-418.
  51. Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).
  52. David L. Abel, “Is Life reducible to complexity?,” Fundamentals of Life, Chapter 1.2 (2002).
  53. David K.Y. Chiu and Thomas W.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 4(3):766-775 (September 2002).
  54. Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).
  55. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).
  56. Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).
  57. Solomon Victor and Vijaya M. Nayak, “Evolutionary anticipation of the human heart,” Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Vol. 82:297-302 (2000).
  58. Solomon Victor, Vljaya M. Nayek, and Raveen Rajasingh, “Evolution of the Ventricles,” Texas Heart Institute Journal, Vol. 26:168-175 (1999).
  59. W. A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
  60. R. Kunze, H. Saedler, and W.-E. Lönnig, “Plant Transposable Elements,” inAdvances in Botanical Research, Vol. 27:331-470 (Academic Press, 1997).
  61. Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996).
  62. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984; Dallas, Texas: Lewis & Stanley Publishing, 4th ed., 1992).
  63. Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).
  64. Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985) (HTML).
  65. William G. Pollard, “Rumors of transcendence in physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 52 (10) (October 1984).

Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings

  1. A. C. McIntosh, “Functional Information and Entropy in Living Systems,” Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering, Vol. 87 (Ashurt, Southampton, United Kindom: WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, WIT Press, 2006).
  2. Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?” Rivista di Biologia /Biology Forum, Vol. 98:71-96 (2005).
  3. Heinz-Albert Becker and Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Transposons: Eukaryotic,”Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (John Wiley & Sons, 2005).
  4. Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes, Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (Ashurst, Southampton, United Kingdom: WIT Press, 2004).
  5. William A. Dembksi, “The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design,” Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 311-330.
  6. Walter L. Bradley, “Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life,” Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 331-351.
  7. Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 352-370.
  8. Stephen C. Meyer, “The Cambrian Information Explosion: Evidence for Intelligent Design,” Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 371-391.
  9. Granville Sewell, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution,” The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 22(4) (2000). (HTML).

Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Journals, or Peer-Reviewed Philosophy Books Supportive of Intelligent Design

  1. Michael C. Rea, World without Design : The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism (Oxford University Press, 2004).
  2. William Lane Craig, “Design and the Anthropic Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” in God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science, pp. 155-177. (Neil Manson ed., London: Routledge, 2003).
  3. Michael Behe, “Reply to my Critic: A Response to Reviews of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,” Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 16, 685–709, (2001).
  4. Del Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science(State University of New York Press, 2001).
  5. William Lane Craig, “The Anthropic Principle,” in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia, pp. 366-368 (Gary B. Ferngren, general ed., Garland Publishing, 2000).
  6. Michael Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin,” Philosophy of Biology, Vol. 67(1):155-162 (March, 2000).
  7. William Lane Craig, “Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 38: 389-395 (1988).
  8. William Lane Craig, “God, Creation, and Mr. Davies,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 37: 168-175 (1986).


13 Responses to “A List of Peer-Reviewed Articles on Intelligent Design”

  1. A couple of points. It’s no help to the ID cause that ID journals are published in peer-reviewed *pro-ID* journals. For example, BIO-Complexity has as a stated goal that “it aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life.” Many of the articles listed above are in this journal. The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics is another. It looks as if very many of the journals listed above are in a similar vein. It’s pretty easy to get ID stuff published if peer-reviewers are sympathetic peers. What opponents of ID want are articles published in generally respected, peer-reviewed (where the reviewing peer isn’t, not by definition anyway, sympathetic to the ID cause) journals. You have a few of those listed up there, but only a few (unless I’ve skipped over some).

    Secondly, books aren’t peer-reviewed. Well, they’re not peer-reviewed in the manner journal articles are. Books are accepted for publication by a publishing house based on a manuscript; they’re not written, then sent out to blind reviewers who decide for the publishing house whether or not the book merits publication. There are books on ID, as you’ve listed above, that are published by some of the best academic presses in the world. That’s true. Even so, it’s no help the ID cause to cite such things. Or, if it is of some help, it doesn’t help deal with the complaint that ID stuff isn’t published in peer-reviewed places (where ‘peer-reviewed’ means what I’ve said about it, above).

    So, anyway, I don’t know how much this list helps the ID cause. Maybe it helps a little. But only a little.

    • Roger, I’m aware of the design groups like BIO-Complexity. It’s founded by the the Biologic Institute, the research lab of Discovery. However, the books mentioned are in dialogues and responses. FOr instance, the section with Dembski’s articles in the book are all reviewed and dialogued by Michael Ruse. Of course there’s Richard Sternberg and Meyer with the Smithsonian’s journal of biology. I’m not using this list as a means of helping ID. In fact, I don’t even care really. It’s just the claim that there’s nothing out there that’s peer-reviewed that’s just annoying. The next claims are going to be more of what you mentioned about BIO. No ID supporting papers have been published in Nature or Science, until one makes it in there people won’t care anymore either. There’s several mainstream journals in there so it’s not like all the design proponents got together and passed around a paper lol. Some of the reviewers in BIO or Darwinian as well, according to what I remember about it.

  2. Hi Roger,

    You wrote “It’s no help to the ID cause that ID journals are published in peer-reviewed *pro-ID* journals. ”

    Would the same be true of Evolution?

    “It’s no help to the Evolution cause that Evolution journals are published in peer-reviewed *pro-Evolution* journals.”

    Kev

  3. Kevin,

    Sure. I guess the burden, however, is on anyone to show that it’s some journal’s stated goal to test the scientific merit (or whatever) of Darwinian accounts of evolution. I’d be surprised if there are any journals, in the general scientific community, that have *that* as a stated goal. Of course, they may all presuppose that Darwinian evolution is true; but that’s different than having as a stated goal the goal of showing how Darwinian accounts of evolution are worthy of scientific merit.

    Also, articles in edited volumes aren’t peer-reviewed either. At any rate, they’re not peer reviewed in the way journal articles are peer-reviewed.

    • Understandably, but articles in these editions are critiqued by opposing views. It’s not a blind review with referees but it’s not a self-publishing either. Some of these certainly have more weight than others but the point is that the debate isn’t within the ID circles only and that it is being critiqued by the scientific community.

  4. It seem that they have had to create their own journals just to get published in. This doesn’t surprise me in the slightest, if the science was any good, they’d use the usual journals BUT they know they their work is ridiculously below par and so they have to create their own journals just like the creationist did.

  5. Trackbacks

Leave a Reply