I remind those from the DI responding to this review (e.g. @pnelson and @Agauger) that we had merely <1000 words, and were not able to explain any thing in detail. All the points we are making can be fleshed out at your request. We left out important points too, in the interest of space. Each point we reference is a strong critique or counter example on its own.
@NLENTS and I will let you know how we’ll respond.
Let me first say this — Woo-hoo!! I’m simply ecstatic about the review. Not because it’s favorable — it surely isn’t. But because it is so embarrassingly, cringe-inducingly weak. It’s the equivalent of a reviewer being rendered speechless, but soldiering on because he’s been assigned to write 700 words — gotta say something .
This, however, is silly gamesmanship and spin. I honestly wonder if anyone can take this seriously. It validates our final point:
Ultimately, Darwin Devolves fails to challenge modern evolutionary science because, once again, Behe does not fully engage with it. He misrepresents theory and avoids evidence that challenges him.
Whoa. I gotta say, that article does not seem like Behe. He’s usually serious and measured, but wow, he’s downright silly here. And why the lashing out? Klinghoffer seems to have rubbed off on him, which is a real shame. Behe is one of the few real scientists in their movement. He was the DI’s only real hope in their quest to be taken seriously. This really doesn’t help the cause.
Um, the claims of Behe’s that are refuted in the review relate to the notion that adaptive evolution occurs only by “breaking” proteins. Not “that new functions only arise through ‘purposeful design’ of new genetic information”.
We did hit on irreducible complexity and edge of evolution a lot. That is because Mike did not accurately present the status of those arguments, and his devolution case depends on both these two arguments being correct.
As for the new argument, he rules out anything but Darwinian processes being useful from the get go. He makes several important omissions. We point out several examples that counter his case, but there are more. The strange thing is that he seems to think Lenskis experiment is a good demonstration of his law, but Lenski’s experiment does not extrapolate to macroevolution. It’s designed to test other things.