A Handy Graphic/Timeline of Behe’s Publication Drop

| 25 Comments

As a follow up to Ethan's post on Gonzalez's publication drop - and since a loyal reader requested it - here is Michael Behe's publication record drop. Behe's productivity has taken a severe hit since he first got involved with "design theory" in 1991. One would imagine that if it was indeed a fruitful paradigm for solving biological problems then his productivity should in fact have increased!

25 Comments

2 pictures worth 2000 words. The 2 universities should make a deal to grant Gonzalez tenure and take Behe’s away. Yeah, I’m not serious, and I know that’ll never happen, but it’s fun to imagine the DI’s reaction to it.

Duplicate thread. Please post comments on the other thread with identical title. Admins, please merge.

What about making a graph with several ID-‘scientists’ as ell as some of the dreaded anti-ID evilutionists, for example Miller etc. If people give me the data, I can make the combined graph

What’s going to be far more interesting than the plots themselves, is the DI’s spin when the bad PR starts leaking out.

Presumably they’re watching these blogs and already know the bad news, so we should be hearing something pretty soon. My guess is that they’ll cherry-pick some scientists with the worst records, but we can count on some entertaining inanity from the clowns at UD.

Kim Wrote:

What about making a graph with several ID-‘scientists’ as ell as some of the dreaded anti-ID evilutionists, for example Miller etc.

You mean Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, who not only believes that life is desiged, but does not hesitate to identify the designer? His record alone should demolish any claim that Gonzalez’ tenure denial is based on his beliefs.

Ravilyn Sanders:

Duplicate thread. Please post comments on the other thread with identical title. Admins, please merge.

Nope. Different title. Different thread.

/admin

Frank J:

Kim Wrote:

What about making a graph with several ID-‘scientists’ as ell as some of the dreaded anti-ID evilutionists, for example Miller etc.

You mean Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, who not only believes that life is desiged, but does not hesitate to identify the designer? His record alone should demolish any claim that Gonzalez’ tenure denial is based on his beliefs.

Exactly!

Compare Behe to Sean Carroll here.

Great, the “Darwinist” “Lynch” mob is at it again.

Sorry, John. I and my warped sense of humor couldn’t resist. But you know they’re gonna say it, if they haven’t already.

Duplicate thread. Please post comments on the other thread with identical title. Admins, please merge.

If you’re going to play meta-administrator, you might at least consider reading what you’re commenting on before making a complete fool of yourself.

There could be many reasons for Behe’s publication drop-now that he is notorious, he might face more discrimination in terms of peer review and getting research grants

Jay Wrote:

There could be many reasons for Behe’s publication drop-now that he is notorious, he might face more discrimination in terms of peer review and getting research grants.

Well, given his recent record, few reviewers would take the risk, and rightly so, if that’s what you mean. But here’s the ironic thing that I mentioned on the other thread: All Behe needs to do is state what his alternative is, and how he would test it. As with any new idea, it would meet with resistance at first, but once his idea took off, they’d be “beating a path to his door.” In fact, Behe is more up front than most anti-evolutionists about what he proposes instead. Specifically, he admits that his alternative process indeed occurs “in-vivo,” and that it’s simply a matter of something other than “RM + NS” occurring “from time to time.” Well that brings up all sorts of wonderful, testable hypotheses - when did they occur?, in what lineages?, could they be occurring now? But just at the point where it could help him immensely, he stops dead. Why is that?

Jay:

There could be many reasons for Behe’s publication drop-now that he is notorious, he might face more discrimination in terms of peer review and getting research grants

I don’t think so. For there to have been been unfair discrimination in the peer-review process, Behe would have to have submitted manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed journals. If he has submitted such manuscripts and those manuscripts have been rejected, even after revision, he could either (a) submit the manuscripts to second-tier journals, (b) publish some of them outside of the peer-reviewed literature and use them as examples of how he is being unjustly excluded from mainstream publication, or (c) at least publish a list of manuscripts he believes were not accepted due to anti-ID or personal bias.

In addition, as I’ve pointed out once or twice in the past, if the ID people can think strategically and have any clear results of design detection, they should be able to get their foot in the door by posting their results without challenging directly the mainstream ToE. In my own group, my students and I develop a strategy for publishing their work to build an argument in the literature … and we’re not challenging the fundamental assumptions of our field.

SWT Wrote:

In addition, as I’ve pointed out once or twice in the past, if the ID people can think strategically and have any clear results of design detection, they should be able to get their foot in the door by posting their results without challenging directly the mainstream ToE.

Furthermore, if they seriously thought something other than “RM + NS” was going on, they could easily state their hypotheses independent of any design claims. In Behe’s case it would be something like Goldschmidt’s approach. For those IDers who seem to deny common descent (curiously, very few deny it outright these days), an approach like Schwabe’s or Senapathy’s might do.

For those IDers who seem to deny common descent (curiously, very few deny it outright these days),

Dembski denied common descent at his talk in Norman, OK two months ago. I suspect he got flustered and forgot he was supposed to evade that particular question.

Can we please see a graph for Dembski and Wells? The two who’ve recently written the new ID textbook?

Seeing all the science they have been doing for the last decade would be awesome!

Mr_Christopher:

Can we please see a graph for Dembski and Wells?

That should take no time at all…

Jake Boyman Wrote:

Dembski denied common descent at his talk in Norman, OK two months ago.

If that’s the one I recall everyone gushing over, all he said was that he denied that humans and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. That doesn’t deny any of the the “biological continuity” that Behe repeatedly defended. In Dembski’s 2004 “modified monkey/modified dirt” paper he made it pretty clear that he was not going to commit either way on the “biological continuity”. Around the same time he gave another talk whereby he clearly admitted an old Earth, yet also clearly expressed greater political sympathy toward the YEC position.

Dembski is a politician. He knows who he needs to impress and how.

Around the same time he gave another talk whereby he clearly admitted an old Earth, yet also clearly expressed greater political sympathy toward the YEC position.

Dembski is a politician.

There are indications that the whole ID scam is a neocon political strategem, the perpetrators deeming religion to be an opiate of the masses and determined to make the most of it.

Bobby Wrote:

There are indications that the whole ID scam is a neocon political strategem, the perpetrators deeming religion to be an opiate of the masses and determined to make the most of it.

And there have been for at least a decade. Yet most people still see them as “honest believers” and say “what’s the harm?”

The problem is that, to keep ID/”teach the controversy” out of public schools one needs to show the “common ancestry” of ID and classic creationism, which they did beautifully at Kitzmiller v. Dover. But now it’s time get people to wonder why there’s so much “don’t ask, don’t tell” in ID. Could it be that the perpetrators know that YEC and OEC are complete failures as science, as opposed to just unmentionable after Edwards v. Aguillard?

If that’s the one I recall everyone gushing over, all he said was that he denied that humans and other apes evolved from a common ancestor.

I’m sorry, enlighten me, in what way is that *not* a denial of common descent?

Jake,

The key word is “evolved.” Dembski (and apparently Behe too) think more along the lines of Richard Goldschmidt, that something radical, beyond the limits of “RM + NS,” occured along the way, but that the species nevertheless share common ancestors, and what Behe calls “biological continuity.”

..or if the concept of design actually made any sense! 8-)

Jay:

There could be many reasons for Behe’s publication drop-now that he is notorious, he might face more discrimination in terms of peer review and getting research grants

This would be a problem for Behe if he had the desire to do research or request grant money, but, ever since he joined the Discovery Institute, he has showed a profound desire to not do any research what so ever. (Neither scientific research, nor even research to fact-check his 2 lousy books)

Bill Gascoyne:

Mr_Christopher:

Can we please see a graph for Dembski and Wells?

That should take no time at all…

x=0 ?

Spin Doctor - A person that makes the public believe that politicians really aren’t that bad - Check out this example http://bit.ly/bkfLRU

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by John M. Lynch published on December 6, 2007 10:36 PM.

A Handy Graphic/Timeline of Gonzalez’s Publication Drop was the previous entry in this blog.

Slackjawed creationist surprised at his own incompetence at a scientific job is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter