Comments on Devolves Back Cover

Doesn’t matter. This is coming in pieces and I honestly am horrified at this smear complain from respected scientists. Argue the science or I am done.

I consider it on the same lines as what you are doing here. There is obviously a motivation that is driving actions. That’s not the issue over ethics, though. The issue over ethics is that one person (Behe’s publisher) has been called out for doing something unethical. You are defending that action by stating that it is unimportant. It is NOT unimportant.

On the other hand, as I stated earlier, the viability of the book’s content is a separate issue. Maybe a more important one, but it does not make this a non-issue.

4 Likes

There is no smear campaign here at PS. Many scientists here are giving detailed scientific criticism of Behe’s book.

1 Like

It does.

Those are crocodile tears. Go read some articles over at ENV where the consistently attack scientists and the scientific community with much stronger words than we are using. I doubt you will have any criticisms of their actions.

4 Likes

Great lets get back to the scientific discussion. I am done with the diversions that don’t help anyone.

Give me an example of then making personal attacks and I will support you 100%. Please lets get back to the science.

Then go ahead and contribute to the scientific discussion.

Love to. Let the scientific discussions begin :slight_smile:

1 Like

Go look at the attacks on Lenski, Lents and Swamidass on EVN. Behe won’t even acknowledge the accomplishments of @lents calling him a “lesser known” reviewer. That’s is not a personal attack?

2 Likes

Where does the cholesterol gene in Polar Bear stand? Should I stop my Lipitor and start eating seal meat and drinking milk shakes from Behe’s local McDonald’s?

Do you think that Di has or has not personally attacked me, @Nlents, and/or @Art? Some phrases thrown our direction:

  1. Incompetent
  2. Fraud
  3. Deceptive
  4. Hit-job
  5. Appalling
  6. Dishonest

I ask you to pair up as many of these phrases thrown at us with comparable statements that @art, @nlents, and I have made.

Please show me the smear coming from me? I’m asking questions about errors we identified in his book. I have not called him dishonest. They have called us dishonest.

How can I be painting him as dishonest when I haven’t called him dishonest? Are you not concerned about their effort to call me dishonest?

I personally don’t think you have called him dishonest. I don’t read ENV regularly so I don’t know what they have been saying in every case.

I was referring to Coyne’s piece this am.

The corrective opportunity I see with the four of you is to make sure you accurately argue against his claims. This is not just you guys but it goes back 20 years to when Ken Miller first took on irreducibly complexity and changed “formable challenge” to “can’t evolve” allowing for a minimal burden of proof.

There is a lot to discuss here that is constructive based on the empirical observations Behe has surfaced. Lets let the evidence lead us to reasonable conclusions what ever they are.

1 Like

Ah I see. Well I do not endorse all of Coyne’s language. I don’t think he is going to care what you think.

It would be helpful if you did take a perusal of what they have been saying about us. It is their pattern, but it doesn’t really seem fair to complain about Coyne much, when he is speaking no more negatively than they.

1 Like

More incredibly shoddy logic. The truth of the accusation is irrelevant to whether or not it is an ad hominem. Please take some time to go read up on it.

Mike Behe has never complained that I have quote-mined him. :slight_smile:

Why does Behe need to be “cleared” here? Why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Why bring this up at all if it is not relevant to what is between the covers of his book?

Note the “scientific” position held by the only two people who actually defended the scurrilous quote-mining done on the back of Behe’s book. Coincidence? :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Because it shows character. No author or publisher with ethics would quote mine a negative review to spin as an endorsement on a book jacket. It’s a sign of a desperation to be taken seriously to the point of outright dishonesty. This can’t be played off as a mistake. It’s deliberately misleading and thus a form of lying. The version I reviewed didn’t have jacket blurbs yet or else I would have raised hell. I actually don’t think Behe had anything to do with it, but for my books, I was always asked to approve the jacket blurbs and I know they also confirmed the exact final wording with the blurbers themselves (bc They are often edited for space.) This looks really bad. Wow

10 Likes

Exactly!

Thank you. I would go one step further and ask why he is being called out to answer for it. Are we here to discuss Mike Behe’s character or his arguments?

Oh he definitely should clarify if he was involved in the deception. It’s his name on the cover. Authors should approve everything that goes out under their name. As I said, I was asked to approve all of these for my books. I’m giving Behe the benefit of the doubt as a courtesy but this looks really bad and he should apologize for the dishonesty done in his name.

6 Likes

Surely you’re kidding. How many articles and posts have we written about his arguments? I’m losing count! Honesty in public discourse is also an important issue. Totally fair game. You’re being argumentative for it’s own sake. Knock it off because it impresses no one.

6 Likes