If only to prove I have too much time on my hands as the semester winds to a close ... here is Michael Behe’s peer-reviewed scientific output over time (again, click for biggie). Remember, friends don’t let friends who were productive scientists become ID "theorists."
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Twelve months ago I offered a roundup of the "advances" made by the intelligent design movement in 2006, a month-by-month roundup which differed significantly from the assessment of John West. I had started to do the same for this year, but quickly realized that the ID movement achieved absolutely…
Jerry Coyne has posted a reply to Behe’s reply to his original review of Edge of Evolution. A sample:
Behe excoriates me for claiming that his defeat (and that of intelligent design [ID]) in the Dover case was more damaging than the scientific criticisms levelled at Darwin’s Black Box. His mistake…
Dembski pimps an interview with his new bestest buddy, the electrical and computer engineer, Robert Marks "director of the Baylor Evolutionary Informatics Lab" (which is comprised of Dembski, Marks and two students). The Isaac Newton of Information Theory says:
I hope you catch from the interview…
The Discovery Institute is apparently going to come out with a report tomorrow outlining 14 "false facts" in my book. I hope that the first I hear about the contents of this report is not on the air with Michael Medved. We'll see.
Still, we can start with Discovery's press release announcing the…
Behe wrote a section of the 2nd edition of Pandas, published in 1993. I don't know when he was asked to do that, but his association with ID comes much closer to the flattening of his productivity.
What are you talking about? Selling books to Christians telling them they're justified in their beliefs for Reel Siuntifuc Reesuns (like "I don't know how Evilushun works and since anything real would be readily apparent to me, thousands of biologists are stupid or sinners") makes WAY more money than putting out dry, dusty old papers.
I'd like to see this graph written like the Gonzalez graph.
On first glance, this graph looks like Behe was getting better all the time.
Better to show the drop off as a clear failure, rather than a decelerating improvement.
Done. See here ... who says I don't listen to my readers :)