Today CSC Director Dr. Stephen Meyer debated Dr. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE on MSNBC. Dr. Scott claimed that there have been no peer-reviewed science articles which support intelligent design. This claim has also been made by plaintiffs' expert witnesses at the Dover trial. MSNBC host Dan Abrams had also been misled into believing this false claim.

Meyer, who authored a peer-reviewed science article supporting intelligent design, made a clear rebuttal. Yet Scott persisted in saying that his article did not support intelligent design. Meyer should know--he wrote the article. Judge for yourself.

Here is what Meyer's article actually says:

"An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa."

Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories" in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239, 2004 (emphasis added)