This article in the New York Times is a pretty useful overview of the political and financial support behind the Discovery Institute, the main anti-evolution think tank. It describes how the Institute has spent $3.6 million dollars to support fellowships that include scientific research in areas such as "laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics."
So the author does some reasearch and is able to identify two papers that have been published by the "scientists" involved with the institute. Two. They do have catchy titles though.
Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Is one.
Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Is the other.
So the author compares this output with a random evolutionary scientist.
Here's one more way to put these results in perspective: compare the two papers I turned up to the work of a single evolutionary biologist. From the thousands I could choose from, I'll pick Douglas Emlen, a young biologist at the University of Montana. He studies horns on beetles as an example of how embryonic development changes during evolution . I visited his publication web site and counted the papers that dealt directly with evolution (leaving out the book chapters and the papers on straight physiology and such). The total so far comes to 23. Over ten times the output I found from the entire Discovery Institute staff.
Well gee, I wonder why Evolution has such a glorious reputation amongst the worlds scientists while Intelligent Design is treated with such derision? Color me puzzled.
