# I Agree With Behe

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/i-agree-with-behe/4475>\
**Category:** Peaceful Science\
**Tags:** Design, Society\
**Created:** [February 12, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/i-agree-with-behe/4475 "2019-02-12T17:00:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 67

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 9:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/i-agree-with-behe/4475/67 "2019-02-15T21:10:11Z")

</div>

> [@Mung](#):
>
> > Behe had YEARS of opportunity to have his work reviewed and commented on prior to publication.
> 
> And it has been. And he’s responded. But that is neither here nor there.

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.”

> [@Mung](#):
>
> 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.

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.]**

> [@Mung](#):
>
> 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 later rather than the former. Just look at the responses if you don’t believe me.

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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/i-agree-with-behe/4475)._