In the past, I have argued that ID “peer-review” is worthless, and that adherence to ID has retarded any scientific output by such supporters as Wells and Behe. In chapter 41 of his The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004), William Dembski sets out to answer the question: If intelligent design is a scientific research program, why don’t design theorists publish or have their work cited in the peer-reviewed literature?
Over at Stranger Fruit I examine Dembski’s response and it’s reliance on the ISCID bibliography.
3 Comments
Great White Wonder · 17 August 2004
Um, so what happens if someone pays the money and retypes the bibliography in a different order or just lists the author names, journal and year without page numbers and then posts it here? Seems to me there'd be no copyright protection in that event ...
Les Lane · 17 August 2004
Scientific bibliographies of Behe and Wells
Steve · 18 August 2004
Does ID have an explanation for this guy?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040818/ids_photos_wl/r1459394032.jpg
Evolution does.