@Pnelson, that is what it means to be “virtually” ignored.
My concerns about Behe and Axe are more substantial than the wording of a phrase here or there. Having seen a preprint of his book, I’m very concerned about Behe’s unwillingness to engage with critics. I am doubly concerned about Axe’s unwillingness.
In the past, Axe has said he would rather engage with atheist scientist than me, mentioning @art specifically. For a while now, he has ignored Hunt’s invitation to discus: Art Hunt to Doug Axe: Invitation to Discuss. Or if he cares to engage with me, I am happy to do so too. Ignoring our good faith efforts to engage with him, however, he does not have a right to say we are biased against him. I have far more respect for you, @Agauger, @bjmiller, @kirk, @Winston_Ewert, @MStrauss, and @ericMH, who have all participated in critical conversations here. They were not always fun, but you earn immense credibility with us for actually engaging.
No comparable engagement is visible between Axe and Behe and their critics. We are inviting them here. Or we are happy to meet them elsewhere. However, it is not upfront to continue to complain about being ignored and rejected if they will not engage the scrutiny of other scientists.
I have very big concerns about this. I am considering at the moment the right thing for me to do with these concerns. Do you have any advice?
[NOTE: Both have selectively engaged at times with scientists in the past. The concern here is in the response to requests to engage and clarify over the last several years]