Behe pwnage
Here's Michael Behe on the witness stand, testifying about the rigorous review of his awful book:
…Behe agreed, when asked by plaintiff's counsel Eric Rothschild if the "peer review for Darwin's Black Box was analogous to peer review in the [scientific] literature." It was, according to Behe, even more rigorous. There were more than twice standard the number of reviewers and "they read [the book] more carefully…because this was a controversial topic."
Here's one of his reviewers (the "deciding factor", even) describing the process:
We spent approximately 10 minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript. I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript.
PWNED.
In case you're wondering if this Atchinson fellow might be making this all up, some (but not all) of the Behe transcripts are available online, and Behe himself has identified Atchinson as a reviewer.
A. Well, the publisher of the book, Free Press, sent it out to be -- sent the manuscript out to be read prior to publication by five scientists.
Q. What were the backgrounds of some of these scientists?
A. One is a man named Robert Shapiro, who is a professor in the chemistry department at New York University and an expert in origin of life studies. Another man was named Michael Atchinson, I believe, and he's a biochemistry professor, I think, in the vet school at the University of Pennsylvania.
I would love to hear what Shapiro had to say about that book.


</i>As with every other term and concept, ID Creationists also redefined "peer review".</i>
Yep they sure did. Good thing the lawyers for the good guys are on their toes over there. Somebody over at the Panda's Thumb commented: "I glad those guys are on our side." Well, me pretty good glad too.