EN: Muller Two-Step a Refutation of Behe's Irreducible Complexity?

“Superior” in what respect?

Dawkins is well-spoken and articulate. His thoughts in “God Delusion” were well-organized, they were just really weak and not at all compelling. I was happy with that! :slight_smile:

I often cite The Edge of Evolution (Behe) as a great example of how the complex process of evolution can be clearly articulated to the public. It was superbly written and a really fun read. I think that someone like @NLENTS could use it as a template and articulate a very strong message.

How many binding sites have evolved in HIV in real time? Behe says zero.

Behe’s book grossly misrepresents evolution.

It helps that they have a more receptive audience who already accepts their conclusion before they write a word. There is also a very obvious culture war aspect to the DI which I consider a detraction, but their audience probably laps it up. The DI has the advantage of only needing to produce a thin veneer of something appearing to be science, and it doesn’t have to stand up to any critical analysis.

The problem is that it was incorrectly articulated to the public.

I feel as though you are trying to not comprehend what I’m saying.

John, please don’t misunderstand. What I’m speaking about here is not technically-correct information. I’m not the judge of that. I’m talking about the creation of a public relations machine (organization, articles, books, videos, podcasts, etc.) that is doing a bang-up job of articulating its message to the public.

Anyone here can talk all they would like about whether or not the message is wrong… but does John Q. Public get it? No. That’s your problem.

It’s not just having one book. And you have to leave open room for those with faith, as many do here. Then you can capture the minds in the way that DI has done.

I realize that.

Two issues:

  1. What is an effective means by which people can be reached (the public).
  2. What is an accurate message that can be articulated to the public.
1 Like

Yes, it is very helpful. I bought into it hook, line and sinker, because it made sense and was well-articulated. Then I came here and learned of the weaknesses inherent in the science, data and conclusions. Most of us (Christians) are interested in the truth, not in a lie that supports our worldview. I’m sure that’s a surprise to many here, but it is the truth.

1 Like

It’s not a surprise, but I admit I use an overly wide brush at times. There is something seductive about arguments that agree with something you already believe. Scientists fall into this trap all of the time, so it certainly isn’t limited to religious groups.


The issue is trust. That is the missing ingredient.

1 Like

@T_aquaticus It’s healthy to evaluate personal weaknesses and understand how they affect our thinking and opinions. I think that there’s a pride (not a good pride) that comes from thinking that you understand a complex issue that takes others a lifetime to understand. There are many pitfalls for sure.

Absolutely. This is why any organization who forms to work similarly to how DI works has to be accepting of a position of faith, too. Else, as for me with “God Delusion”, you write off the information source (Dawkins) from the start, even though his books on general evolution may be helpful.

That’s much easier to do when one abandons truth.

One answer: teaching our children the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Behe is a good writer. My main issue with his style is that he relies on his analogies way too much (rather than actual examples) and then spends more time explaining how his theories apply to the analogies than to real life. Sorry to sound snarky, but I suppose one reason is that his theories fit his analogies much better than they do real life.


I see what you are saying. For me, the analogies help, but I can see how it would be bothersome to one who is already a content expert. It didn’t seem that you were being snarky at all.


It’s easier to articulate a clear message when one abandons the truth?? You think you can’t make science interesting enough using similar venues to articulate a technically correct and equally appealing message??

This is exactly what I’m talking about as well. Just do it as well as they are doing it.

The clear message is out there. It is not a failure to communicate. The issue has been trust. ID has built trust with audiences that are alienated by aggressive atheists. The reason they are believed is because they are trusted.


Don’t blame us. ID came directly from the Christian Fundamentalist Right and is still sustained financially by them. Without funding they would crumble.

Yes everyone feels they are the aggrieved, and perhaps everyone is. That doesn’t change the facts. The missing ingredient is trust.

1 Like

It’s a chicken and egg thing? … but the chicken has your face on it …

1 Like

and the egg is on Behe’s face.