It’s true in biological science circles. Can you bring yourself to admit that?

He’s respected as a publicist and writer, not as a scientist, aside from ssome early work. I know biologists who cringe at his ideas and approach. So no, I don’t think that it IS necessarily true.

Yet you claimed that Dawkins was no better than Behe. In some circles of course - intelligent design circles - that would be a respectable opinion. But it would leave the vast majority of scientists scratching their heads and looking at you all funny.

Really? How do you know that? You have taken a poll? Hyperbole aside, you may be right, but it is irrelevant: in my opinion, they are both intellectually dishonest cranks. I suggest David Stove: Darwinian Fairy Tales for an attack on Dawkins. Stove is (was: he’s dead now) neither an IDer nor creationist, but a lifelong, clear spoken agnostic: look it up. His biology is sometimes weak, but his criticisms of Dawkins are trenchant.

At any rate, I do not think Darwin was a liar, and if he was ever a hypocrit, that is just about irrelevant. But if we are going to pillory Behe for intellectual mendacity, and on that basis assert that he must therefore be a pathological liar about his personal beleifs (that’s one of the things I have been hearing) then we must hold science writers to the same standard. Dawkin’s idea of a meme is slipshod pseudoscience, in my opinion. The most ardent defender of memetics in this thread won’t even dare to classify it as science, and I agree with that much of what he says. By these standards, plus the fact that he’s a howling antitheist bigot (did you read his post Sept 11 column?) he’s a pathological liar too.

Now, if he is widely respected, then either a) it is unfair to characterise all those biologists as respecting a pathiological liar or b) it is unfair to dawkins to classify him as a pathological liar simply because he’s an intellectually dishonest bigot. I favor B. But then apply those criterioa to Behe. Behe is sloppy, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical blah blah blah, all that stuff, no argument from me. That doesn’t make him a pathological liar: it makes him wrong.

I find it funny that because I am saying this, a number of people seem to have gotten the impression that I’m an ID supporter. I am definitely going to have to keep this up.