I think I might have misspoken slightly in my last post.
When I said that Eddie gave “not a shred of evidence that Wikipedia’s characterisation of the scientific community’s reception of DBB as being extremely negative is incorrect”, I think I should have gone further and said that Eddie doesn’t even contend that it was incorrect.
Eddie’s only two complaints seem to be that:
-
He is butt-hurt that I used a ‘citation/source of convenience’ for the scientific community’s rejection of DBB rather than spending several hours engaging in pointless research to reinvent the wheel in demonstrating this point myself.
-
That rather than engaging in some arcane and impractical means of determining the scientific community’s reception, Wikipedia simply went the practical route of surveying the most prominent reviews.
That the scientific community regards Behe’s work as utter garbage does not appear to be in any real doubt. As to establishing this obvious point in a way that satisfies Eddie: