It’s academically irresponsible to respond to a critical review of a book one hasn’t read. I haven’t read Behe’s new book yet, so it would be improper for me to respond to critiques of it. (Contrast my professional attitude with the attitude of so many internet yahoos who are willing to say that ID is rubbish without ever having read even one ID work, going entirely on rumor and hearsay.)
I have read all of Denton’s published work in the area, and have seen all the works cited in his notes and bibliographies. He has read a lot on the history of evolutionary theory – a lot more, I wager, than the majority of people who post strong opinions about evolutionary theory on the internet.
Their references in their works give some idea. Also, I have had extensive personal contact with some of them. As for Collins, I admit to no first-hand knowledge of his library, but his discussions of evolution indicate very little historical knowledge of evolutionary theory, or of contemporary debates regarding evolutionary mechanism. He may have read things, but if so, he hides what he has learned under a bushel, because his presentation of evolution shows no awareness of the complexities. His account is popular and superficial, no deeper than that of, and maybe not even as deep as, that of Ken Miller, which is itself popular and superficial.
No, I mean the fact that one pseudonymous scientist in particular, probably 50 times now, on BioLogos, has issued war whoops over Meyer’s alleged error on one page of a 500-page book, with the clear intention of convincing the public that anyone who could make that error doesn’t know what he’s talking about and should not be listened to on anything, while ignoring the overall argument of the book. This narrow focus on little technical slips, while ignoring big-picture issues, is characteristic of small minds, whether it is found in biology or New Testament studies. Again, as I said before, if this criticism does not apply to you, you can ignore it.