Biographies of the creationists
Charles Thaxton is an abio guy, I think. I had a lengthy e-mail exchange with him years ago, but it's history, can't find it. I recall him as polite but absolutely unmovable. He just would *not* ease up on using abio to diss evo, no matter what I said or linked to.I believe that means he'll attack the still developing field of the origins of life, and not directly address evolution.
Some background:These guys are big fish, and both have been extensively profiled and debunked at TalkOrigins.
Stephen Meyer, PhD History and Philosophy of Science, including methodology of historical sciences; Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute Date of anticipated testimony: May 7 Business: 509-777-4548; Cell: 509-467-5862
Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular and cell biologist, author of Icons of Evolution and Senior Fellow Discovery Institute Date of anticipated testimony: May 5
Well Meyer was of course the cat who snuck the paper on the Cambrian past the editor/review at the PBSW. You probably know it all already, but I have a short bio on him and moonie Jonathan Wells with some links to the thumb here: http://uti.dinggraphics.com/archives/000406.html
Red State Rabble has some data on Dr. Bruce Simat.
Behe, Calvert, and Harris are other well-known entities.
I'll do Robert Disilvestro:
Dr. Disilvestro is a biochemist at the Ohio State University. He teaches in the Department of Nutrition, where he focusses on
Nutritional biochemistry and clinical nutrition of antioxidant nutrients and phytochemicals, especially in regard to inflammatory aspects of disease and exercise recovery; mineral and phytochemical effects on weight loss.He has been known to shill for a dietary supplement maker. He also has turned his expertise on nutritional supplements to the defense of Michael Behe, and a broader promotion of the supernatural in origins.
His writing doesn't come across as dogmatic, but he doesn't seem to blaze any new ground. He attempts to engage the standard critiques of Behe, but winds up relying on sophistry, and not very good sophistry. His opposition to naturalism ignores the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism, and winds up spouting standard creationist claims about the insufficiency of the Miller-Urey experiment, the inability of "microevolution" to explain "macroevolution" and Ernest Haeckel.
This is not a bright light.