Stephen C. Meyer

Stephen C. Meyer väitteli tohtoriksi Cambridgen yliopistossa tieteenfilosofiasta. Meyer toimi aiemmin geofyysikkona ja yliopisto-opettajana, mutta johtaa nyt Tieteen ja kulttuurin keskusta Discovery Institutessa Seattlessa, Yhdysvalloissa. Vuonna 2004 Meyer laukaisi sanasodan mediassa ja tieteen saralla, kun eräs Smithsonian Institutioniin yhteydessä oleva biologian alan aikakausjulkaisu julkaisi Meyerin älykästä suunnittelua puolustavan vertaisarvioidun artikkelin. Meyer on esiintynyt useissa kansallisissa TV- ja radio-ohjelmissa sekä kahdessa New York Times -lehden kansikuva-artikkelissa ja saanut huomioita muissa tunnetuissa medioissa.

Teokset:

• Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. HarperOne (June 23, 2009) ISBN 0061472786
• David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, and Mark E. DeForrest (1999) Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum: A Legal Guidebook. Foundation for Thought and Ethics. ISBN 0-9642104-1-X
• Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer (2000) Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe. Ignatius Press ISBN 0-89870-809-5
• John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer (2003) Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, Michigan State University Press. ISBN 0-87013-675-5

Meyer also published a 2004 paper, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories" in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington; however, the paper was withdrawn by the publisher when it was found that the editor, fellow intelligent design proponent Richard Sternberg, did not properly peer review the article and instead used his position to publish the paper in his last issue as editor. This resulted in the Sternberg peer review controversy, with intelligent design advocates claiming they had a peer reviewed paper to substantiate their arguments, while mainstream scientists pointed out that the paper only appeared through a bypassing of the normal peer review process. It was also pointed out that the article was little more than a rehashing of ideas Meyer had published previously in non-peer reviewed venues.¹