Re: What journals did Behe publish in ?

Steve Clark (
Mon, 24 May 1999 10:52:29 -0500

At 11:29 AM 5/24/99 EDT, wrote:
><< At 21:45 23/05/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >You mentioned that Behe had published his data. What journals?
> >
> Dear all,
> In the hope that this might shed more light than heat, this is what a quick
> search on the BIDS scientific literature database reveals (for 1996-98):
> Copyright 1999, Institute for Scientific Information Inc.
> Database: Science Citation Index
> (1) TI: Embryology and evolution
> AU: Behe_MJ
> JN: SCIENCE, 1998, Vol.281, No.5375, p.348
> (2) TI: Defining evolution
> AU: Behe_MJ
> JN: SCIENTIST, 1997, Vol.11, No.22, p.10
> (3) TI: Oligoadenosine tracts favor nucleosome formation
> AU: Mahloogi_H, Behe_MJ
> Vol.235, No.3, pp.663-668
> (4) TI: Defining evolution
> AU: Behe_MJ
> JN: SCIENTIST, 1997, Vol.11, No.12, p.10
> (5) TI: Darwinism and design
> AU: Behe_MJ
> JN: TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 1997, Vol.12, No.6, p.229
> (6) TI: Non-conservative mutations are well tolerated in the globular
> region of yeast histone H4
> AU: Agarwal_S, Behe_MJ
> JN: JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, 1996, Vol.255, No.3, pp.401-411
> **** End of Data ****
> regards
> Tim >>
>***** Well, four of the five are letters, the one that I assume is purported
>by ID supporters to provide evidence of design (somehow) merely points out
>that histones are not homogeneous (more or less) in yeast. So what?

Someone, I believe Paraclesus, claimed that Behe is an eminent scientist.
However, his publication record (listed in part above) suggests that he is
adequate but mediocre. Most of the citations listed above are not
peer-reviewed research papers. He has published a bit on DNA
structure/function, mostly in secondary journals, but his record would not
likely be sufficient for tenure at the University of Wisconsin. I haven't
looked at his CV in a year or two, but when I did, he had not published
research papers on evolution. Finally, his book should not be taken as a
research contribution. And for Paraclesus to call it brilliant is, I
believe, an overstatement. It seems to simply reiterate the old Watchmaker
Hypothesis and only criticizes a very basic Darwinian paradigm. Other
paradigms that are consistent with a selection-driven evolution are really
not excluded from Mike's critique.