Jones’ full statement is as follows:
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 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.” (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)).
As you will see, they quoted the summary, but not the extensive detailed analysis.
I do not have Minnich’s testimony immediately to hand, so cannot tell if the DI accurately summarise his testimony and/or any push-back on cross-examination, that might have undercut its credibility. Did Jones simply forget its existence, or did he omit it because he did not consider it to be credible?
In any case, the two publications listed are problematical, as is a third I remember being at issue. Meyer’s article has been repudiated by the journal’s publisher. Most books (such as The Design Inference), most probably due to their length, are not subjected to rigorous peer review. The same holds for Darwin’s Black Box, which I remember as having peer-review claimed for it at the trial, with its problems being compounded by issues that were recently discussed here.
Addenda:
-
The relevant testimony can be found here.
-
I’ve only parsed some of it, but Minnich also refers to a paper presented at the Wessex Institute, whose peer-review process has apparently been questioned – see their Wikipedia page here.
-
The 7-10 figure actually came from the cross-examination here:
Q. Dr. Minnich, you're not aware of any research articles advocating intelligent design in any peer reviewed scientific journals, are you?A. I think yesterday there was, as I mentioned, there were around, between, I don’t know, seven and ten. I don’t have the specific ones. But Dr. Axe published one or two papers in the journal Biological Chemistry that were specifically addressing concepts within intelligent design. Mike Behe had one. Steve Meyer has had one.
So, you know, I think the argument that you’re not publishing in peer reviewed literature was valid. Now there are a couple out there. How many do we have to publish before it is in the literature and being evaluated? I mean, do we have to have 25? 50? I mean, give me a number.
Q. Let’s just talk about Dr. Axe. Those papers don’t advocate intelligent design, do they?
A. That’s the intent in terms of looking at protein sequence and domains and sequence space.
Q. He doesn’t mention the words intelligent design anywhere in those articles, isn’t that correct?
A. There’s a reason for that.
Q. And you mentioned something by Dr. Behe, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. That’s the article with Snoke?
A. Yes.
Q. That wasn’t in a scientific journal, was it?
A. Well, refresh my memory. I haven’t read the papers.
Q. So you don’t know – if Dr. Behe testified that that wasn’t in a scientific journal, you wouldn’t question it?
A. I wouldn’t dispute it, no.
@Puck_Mendelssohn may offer more expert interpretation, but to this layman’s eyes this comes across as weak and ambiguous testimony, the sort that a judge might well dismiss.