I Agree With Behe

I don’t care who at the DI. My question was about Mike, and the answer is no, you and your co-authors did not send him a copy of the review prior to its publication and invite comments. Thank you for your answer.

You misunderstand. I did not say this.

Whoever we talked to at DI (which includes Behe) was given an opportunity to see it, and they refused. This was a gesture of good will, and we were under no obligation to do so in the first place. We also were in contact with Behe, and he refused to engage the refutations of his work that we laid out.

1 Like

@Mung You are missing what the prior to publication peer review process is all about. Behe had YEARS of opportunity to have his work reviewed and commented on prior to publication. He chose not to do any peer review. Thus he get hammered for publishing without extensive peer review and extensive rewrite prior to publication. And it is not going to stop. The scientific community will pile on mercilessly. The scientific community will go back to Dover and discredit him over and over again. @nlents @swamidass and Lenski will be the most cordial reviews that Behe gets. It is going to get really down, dirty and brutal as young up and coming evolutionary scientists see an opportunity to make names for themselves by destroying the work of another.

Take a look about what Behe employer Lehigh University says:

Compare that with what @lents University says:


He also had years to respond to @art and Boudry. We selected these cases because they have been out for a very long time, and he has studiously avoided engagement, just he did in his last review. That is very concerning to us, and should be to anyone who cares about the Intelligent Design Movement, such as yourself.

And it has been. And he’s responded. But that is neither here nor there.

We’re talking about a book that hasn’t even been published yet and building bridges to the ID community. My suggestion, by now too late, would have been that the authors of the review or the magazine in which it was published, could have reached out to Behe personally and invited his comments prior to it being published. Who knows, they might have changed something in it.

So is it about building bridges or burning them? Because if you look at it from the perspective of the ID community, it appears to be the latter rather than the former. Just look at the responses if you don’t believe me.

1 Like

No. He has not. This is objectively false. The fact that he has responded to many other refutations does NOT mean:

  1. He has responded effectively.

  2. He has responded to the strongest refutations.

  3. He has responded to all legitimate refutations.

Failure on any of these points is an example of being “unresponsive.” Behe has been, objectively speaking, “unresponsive.”

We did do this @Mung. He refused to engage. Stop making me repeat this.

[NOTE: Just to be clear this. I did not invite anyone from Behe to preview the review and give comment to us before it was finalized. This would have been unethical (and we did not do it). We did reach out to engage Behe on related points independent of the review.]

We are interested in a Peace that does not depend on agreement. Behe was honored to have a review of his work in Science. If not for @Nlents, that may not have happened. It might have included ad hominems if it was reviewed in Science by others.

We are under no obligation to give a positive review. We are ethically bound to give an honest and diligent review, and that is exactly what we did. It is unfortunate that an honest review “burns bridges” with DI, but we are not interested in a cheap peace that requires us to be silent about what we are seeing. We are looking for a better sort of peace, where we could give an honest but negative review, and DI would welcome it, realizing the kindness and respect behind it. It is not the world DI inhabits, but it is the scientific world. We would for DI to join us here sometime.


If we mean reviews from the scientific community, that is very likely to be true.

If the bridges between ID and real science are burning it’s because the IDers set them on fire themselves. In the last 20 years ID has had every opportunity to join the scientific community, follow accepted scientific processes, have their work peer reviewed and published in mainstream scientific journals. But they didn’t. ID (mainly the DI) have consciously chosen to bypass science in lieu of cheap propaganda directed towards the lay public. Now they’re crying crocodile tears because one of their ID golden boys got his butt handed to him over his exceptionally shoddy and deliberately misleading work.

Sorry Mung but science doesn’t have an affirmative action program for unsupported religious ideas like ID. When they do the work and earn their way into the community they will be accepted. Until then they won’t.

1 Like

in fact, there are dozens of peer-reviewed articles published by ID advocates

But not a single one anywhere providing positive evidence of any external Intelligent Design.

here is positive evidence published, Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239

Please list them here.

That was the nonsense paper sneaked past peer review by an unscrupulous Creationist friendly editor and which was subsequently disavowed by the journal. Meyer later used it as the basis for his pseudo-science popular press book Darwin’s Doubt. Neither the paper nor the book have anything even close to positive evidence for ID. The whole thing is the usual ID argument from ignorance “science can’t explain this to my satisfaction, therefore DESIGN!!”.

Sorry, there is no published positive evidence anywhere for external intelligent design of biological life.

1 Like

Please read and summaries the major findings for us. Thanks. This is a 2004 paper, how has it held up to scrinity. It is 2019, we know a lot more about the Cambrian Period now and much prior.


you said they did not publish anything in peer review journals, now you claim that you do not like published work, but that is your biased view

I said they don’t publish anything with positive evidence for ID, and they don’t.

1 Like

the article that i provided is positive evidence for ID, the fact that your eyes cannot see that, but my eye can see that, is neither my problem nor Discovery Institute problem

Where? Please cite the portions with the positive evidence for ID. Do you understand what science means by positive evidence?

First cite the article what Science mean by saying «Postive evidence», then I will cite the part of the peer-reviewed article that fits the definition that you provided from the peer-reviewed article

There is no evidence for ID in that paper by Stephen Meyer. Read it and find the positive evidence for ID. When you think that you have such evidence, do a search for the latest findings from science on that evidence and I am sure that you will realize that this is NO evidence for ID anywhere.