Behe Responds To Dawkins

Excellent rebuttal (note I said rebuttal, not refutation. I know the difference between those two words. Do you? Many Darwinists do not seem to, seeing as they regard Ken Miller's rebuttals of Behe to be "refutations", which is nothing short of absurd).

Here's one good point:

At the end of his review Dawkins chides me for lack of peer-reviewed publications. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If Dawkins himself has many peer-reviewed research publications in the last few decades, he must be writing them under a pseudonym. Dawkins’ hypocritical complaint makes a nice little example of Darwinian gate-keeping. The nebulous, wooly-minded scenarios Dawkins spins in his books, of the origins of bat echolocation, spider webs, and so on, have no real justification in peer-reviewed publications. Yet Dawkins is free to write trade books without howls of protest from the scientific community because his stories fit the way many scientists want the world to be. But if (ahem...) someone publishes a book critically analyzing the data from a different perspective, the reaction is dramatically different.