I Agree With Behe

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.

5 Likes