Learn from the mistakes of others

two of my favourite sites for keeping up with the general trends in evolution theory are evowiki and the panda's thumb. have been for some time.

i had reason to check evowiki today, and that led me to http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/idlit.html [via a broken link. thank goodness evolution has provided me with tools to cope with change, and things going kerplunk in the night, and so forth ;)]

anyways, here is the key content of the page (in case you're interested, but want to avoid yahoo/geocities wikedness :)

---

Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.

Francis Bacon

Science Citation Index - the last 14 years (13 million articles, 5300 journals as of 8th August 2004)

141 articles use the key phrase "intelligent design" in titles, keywords, or abstract.

.... All but 43 are engineering articles.

.... Of the 37 articles on biological ID, 32 are critical of ID.

.... None of 6 articles promoting ID (primarily letters to the editor) is in a research journal.

For comparison 113,000 articles use the keyword "evolution", including 28,000 in 2003.

.... Many refer to biological evolution and are in research journals.

The key ID concept "specified complexity" -> 1 article (a book review)

Another key ID concept "irreducible complexity" -> 9 articles.

.... The two in research journals criticize irreducible complexity.

Key evolutionary term "natural selection" -> 5400 articles

For comparison, "flat earth" returns 53 articles. "Cold fusion" returns 661 articles!

Intelligent Design Network implies that evolution and design should be taught equally.
Clearly these two concepts are not of equal stature in the scientific literature.