Ah, well I am glad you have enjoyed my reviews! I actually had not heard of your new book (though I am sure I would have run into it soon!), but now I will rush out to buy it and yes, I should be able to get an Amazon review up. I love it when people write books for a more general audience – I am myself without any formal training (past high school, unless you count a few weeks of phys anthro at the University of Washington in the 1970s) in biological topics, and yet am passionately interested, which often puts me in that odd in-between place where many books are a bit too dumbed-down but where I am also incapable of really taking the primary literature itself on, at least in any great quantity and without a bit of guidance. Human ancestry is an area I have always been particularly fascinated with, ever since my parents bought the Time-Life book on “Early Man” back in the 1960s or 70s. And new genomic insights into that are just what I love to read about – my goodness, knowledge moves fast these days!
On Behe, I have just located my copy of Darwin Devolves. I’ll get back to you with a more detailed version of my question, verifying the non-cite and pointing to where, in the book, I think he would have been expected to cite them if he thought their work was sound. His cites to other ID people are, likewise, few and far between. Behe is a strange one, and of course stands far above his ID peers in terms of having actual scientific credentials and real work (though, of course, not work particularly supporting ID) to his credit. I always wonder what he really thinks when someone like Stephen Meyer or Jonathan Wells just tells out-and-out lies – Behe’s honesty can be challenged, of course, too, but I always sort of suspect that a lot of what’s going on there is self-deception. He seems like a pleasant fellow, but judging from remarks at his book launch (I live in Seattle, near the heart of the beast) I would say that he does not take criticism of his work with a great deal of seriousness – odd for a man who might suppose he was ushering in a grand paradigm shift.
As for IDists and being their nemesis – I was actually a bit surprised when the DI started taking notice of me. It doesn’t happen on books like Darwin Devolves, because it makes better chatter for them to respond to a review like yours than to one like mine. But on their sort of regular-run books, the scientific community is no longer interested enough to bother commenting most of the time, and so I wind up taking fire from the DI. It first happened on Leisola’s book, Heretic, and then Jonathan Wells went after me for my review of Foresight by Marcos Eberlin (a man who thinks that “homoplasy” is what we now call the thing Darwin called “homology.” Clearly one of the greats.).
Anyhow: when the DI responds to me, I always have a chuckle. It’s always horrible, of course, and easily dismantled, but I sort of imagine them thinking, “what sort of perdition is this we have descended into, where instead of fighting off actual scientists, we are arguing with this guy?”