The influence of IDC
But maybe creationists have trouble with RSS. Let's check the logs.
Billy's stats are inaccessible, as are the DI blog's stats. But little Denyse O'Leary has sitemeter's stats service, as do I. Here's how the last week has been for TfK. Weekends are always bad, and Sunday isn't over yet, so ignore the tail. We're seeing about 655 visitors per day.
Denyse is getting about 160 visitors per day.
Billy Dembski and I have almost the same Technorati rank (I have 215 sites linking to me, he has 220). That means that he barely edges me out in the rankings on the Intelligent Design page. On the science page, he doesn't even seem to show up. O'Leary has 68 sites linking to her, the DI blog has 157 sites linking to it.
Of course, this is all nice in terms of public approval, but what matters is scientific acceptance.
On Google Scholar, if this search yields 776,000 results: evolution biology
This search gives 1130 results: "intelligent design" biology
Note that a whole lot of those results in the second group are critiques of the social debate, and those will all mention evolution. Sources that mention both evolution and IDC account for 982 of the results. The remaining 139 results are lead by a physics paper, and include some other papers about artificial intelligence, as well as some book reviews and a few conference proceedings from the Discovery Institute.
What don't seem to exist are studies that focus exclusively on intelligent design in biological systems, while studies focussing on evolution in biological systems are ubiquitous.
The public support is nice, but all that matters in the end is the research, and Washington, DC PR firms can't produce that. Apparently, neither can the DI's scientists.
Update: Dr. Myers helpful rescales all of this relative to his traffic: