The Bibliography was prefaced with the following explanation:
The publications represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins.A posting on the CRSC web site, dated March 11, contains the bibliography w ith the following disclaimer:
The publications are not presented either as support for the theory of intelligent design, or as indicating that the authors cited doubt evolution. [emphasis in the original]Now, if you're starting to wonder whether the intended purpose of the bibliography is to support intelligent design, or demonstrate "problems with evolution", you're going to be even more confused if you read the article the CRSC posted on its web site, again dated March 11th, by Fred Hutchison.
Hutchison writes that "[Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells] offered to the board a list of forty papers (sic) written by intelligent design scientists which had been published in peer reviewed journals." [emphasis added]
See Design and Evolution [link has expired] at the CRSC web site.
NCSE requests the CRSC to clear the air. First, correct the false claim that the 44 articles are written by "intelligent design scientists." Second, explain why the bibliography was presented to the Ohio Board of Education sans the disclaimer that appeared with it on the CRSC web site. (Was the board ever notified of its insertion?)
It is of little wonder why the intelligent design movement seems to find it difficult to take positions on basic concepts like the age of the earth and descent with modification when their leading organization suffers so much confusion.
For NCSE's complete analysis of the bibliography and comments from authors see: Analysis of the Discovery Institute's "Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Instruction"
A previous version of this story misidentified Meyer as the President, rather than as the Director, of the CRSC; we apologize for the error.