Let me suggest an alternate hypothesis – the more lies and misrepresentations get repeated, the angrier and more ‘vituperative’ the denunciations of these lies and misrepresentations become.
Taking Michael Behe as a prime example:
-
His first book, Darwin’s Black Box was not well received by the scientific community. The source that Behe cited for his blood-clotting claims, Russell Doolittle, accused Behe of mirepresenting his work
-
Further, he misrepresented this book, under oath at Dover, as being peer reviewed.
-
His second book, Edge of Evolution, likewise received negative reviews from the scientific community. I would note that one of the scientists who did most to debunk Behe’s claims in this book was described on this forum as a “arrogant young twit” for her efforts (“vituperative” much?).
-
His third book was demolished on this very forum, and one of the key pieces of evidence for it being intentional dishonesty has been presented to you above.
Now given all this evidence that not only does Behe’s claims have no scientific merit, and involves a considerable amount of misrepresentation, how do you think people might react to somebody coming along and stating, without any substantiation of their claim being offered:
Does that make some of us angry? Hell yes!
Does that anger in any way negate the evidence for the DI’s lack of integrity and lack of scientific merit? Hell no!
Addendum: I would also note that @Marty’s argument is what is known as “tone policing”, a tone argument" or “tone trolling” – and is a well-known logical fallacy.