I’m a classical theist so I take huge offense to that. 
I think he’s rather rugged looking there…
1 Like
Both look very Italian.
It does demonstrate our point that “he misrepresents theory and ignores evidence against him.” It is pretty important to understand the theory you are critiquing, and he certainly misunderstands it.
1 Like
Yes there is “something wrong with that”. Behe is a tenured professor in the Biological Sciences Department of Lehigh University. He skipped the proper scientific pier reviewed process to have one’s ideas adjudicated by the scientific community via the normal publication in peer reviewed journal route. Instead he writes and publishes (without any technical review) his scientific ideas in a book to the general public. Upon review by many highly-accomplished working scientists (Lents, Lenski, Coyne, Swamidass and others) many errors, falsehoods, and general sloppiness is revealed. So in the process Behe tarnishes not just his reputation but the reputation of LeHigh University and the reputation of entire evolutionary science field at large. That’s what is wrong.
3 Likes
No, Joshua, that Behe ties his ideas about evolution to selection doesn’t demonstrate any such thing. You’ve just made a bad argument. You have in fact tied your ideas about evolution to selection as well, but no one is arguing that this demonstrates that you misrepresent theory and ignore evidence. Because from one the other does not follow.
1 Like
The example of chloroquine resistance used in Behe’s book “Edge of Evolution” relies on the presence of a neutral mutation that wasn’t selected for. Therefore, mutations that weren’t selected for are just as important, and are largely ignored by Behe.
3 Likes
@T_aquaticus has it right. At some point Behe has to engage with non Darwinian processes, instead of mentioning them merely to say they are irrelevant. He tilts against the Darwinian windmill, conquering the imaginary beast. At some point he has to engage, you know, with current understanding of evolutionary science.
He is running out of time though. I’m not sure he has a forth book in him.
1 Like
Douglas Futuyma also ties his ideas about evolution to selection. So do many other authors. It doesn’t follow that they misrepresent theory and ignore evidence. Simply pointing out that they tie their ideas about evolution to selection doesn’t demonstrate anything. For that one needs an argument.
Yup. One also needs evidence, and coherence. We have all that. Still waiting on DI to catch up.
@davecarlson, Futuyama is in your institution, right? Does he deny the importance of neutral evolution? Does he think it is irrelevant to understanding how evolution progresses?
1 Like
@davecarlson, Futuyama is in your institution, right? Does he deny the importance of neutral evolution? Does he think it is irrelevant to understanding how evolution progresses?
No, not at all. From my interactions with him, I believe he is personally most interested in adaptive evolution (his research was focused on the evolutionary ecology of plant-insect interactions). From that standpoint, my impression is that he finds selection to be more interesting than drift as an intellectual topic. However, I have never heard him deny the importance of neutral evolution, especially regarding to molecular evolution. In fact, drift, neutral theory and its use as as a key null model were frequent topics he brought up in lectures. Certainly drift and neutral evolution are also discussed at some length in his books as well.
Note that these are all my personal impressions, and I don’t want to presume to know his mind on this.
1 Like
Be sure to ask Mike the same questions. 
1 Like
We certainly can. Or you can just read his book. It is very clear Behe’s target is the Darwinian windmill. Tilt away!
1 Like
It does not follow that Mike denies the importance of neutral evolution. It also does not follow that Mike thinks neutral evolution is irrelevant to understanding how evolution occurs. Yet the way you are wording things make it appear that you think both of those are true of Mike Behe.
Would you say that the following two statements are true?
- Mike Behe denies the importance of neutral evolution.
- Mike Behe thinks neutral evolution is irrelevant to understanding how evolution progresses.
Do you think it would be a good idea to ask Mike the same questions you wanted asked of Futuyma before publishing the above statements? That might actually encourage dialogue.
1 Like
Except he says it isn’t important 
He [Mike Behe] says it [neutral evolution] isn’t important to what? Building complex integrated cellular systems composed of multiple parts that function together to accomplish a purpose?
That would not surprise me, if he says that. But that’s different from saying it’s not important to molecular evolution.
1 Like
I guess he’d also argue the blue color of the sky is evidence against the sky being blue if he thought the Bible required him to believe it was pink.
Is it true that some people once considered Behe a serious thinker? Why did they?
The entire argument of his last book (Edge of Evolution) rested on the complete denial of neutral evolution. And since he has yet to withdraw that argument, it is safe to say he remains in denial.
3 Likes
It does follow:
Behe thinks neutral mutations stop the “Darwinian magic”. Plain as day.
4 Likes