David Bowden

I read this in our local paper today.

<a href="http://www.news-gazette.com/story.cfm?Number=12204" target="_blank">UI prof rewriting Theory of Evolution – again</a>

Some very cool science being done by Carl Woese, a local professor, but what the heck inspired them to get Behe's opinion (about 2/3 down)?!? and what does Behe's comment actually have to do with the science being done by Carl Woese? To me it seems like he's just spouting the same old lines.

Is the media starting to contact ID advocates as a matter of due diligence in writing articles relating to evolution?

If so: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

- David

Albion

Well, controversy sells newspapers, and controversy within science isn't as exciting as ID challenges to science itself.

Trouble is, without Stephen Gould and Carl Sagan, who are the high-profile people the papers can contact? If the IDists are the ones courting publicity, they're the ones who are going to be quoted. Interesting that they didn't get Ken Miller's opinion.

Zimyatin

So they gave Behe a line? After reading the article it looks like Behe is made to look the fool. He apparently is the only one in disargeement amoung several scientists' opinions. (not that I'd call Behe a scientist).

tgamble

At least they aren't consulting Hovind, Ham, Sarfati... That would be something to worry about!

Behe may be an ID advocate but he seems to accept more evolution than most creationists and he IS a biochemist or works at a real university.