On Adam you had valid points that the rest of us missed. Thank you. If not for you, I would still be wrong on important points.
On the rest, I’m still hearing you out. We are in a prolonged exchange on several points. Give it time. I will be fair to you. If you show me something I missed, I will be clear about it and thank you. Maybe you will show me something important that I missed again.
They have no need to engage with me. Other scientists are here too. I want to give them a fair hearing. I have changed my mind in the past. If they are right, I hope I would do the same again.
It is not fair to paint me as close minded. That is not accurate.
I am concerned that he has not engaged the scientific issues raised by others. No one should treat him unkindly.
It is not an accusation. It is exactly what Axe says he is doing in Undeniable when he discusses “common science.”
With Behe, I’m saying this after many years of inviting him into dialogue. Maybe he engaged int the past. Where is he engaging now? I want to give him a fair hearing. I’ve read all of his work. I want to know how he responds to the legitimate problems that have been identified in his work. This is a fair request.
A real exchange. An authentic dialogue. I want to know what I misunderstood. I want to understand them better, and I want to see ID live up to Dembski’s admonitions 25 years ago for ID to become a disciplined science:
Intellectual Standards . Are we holding ourselves to high intellectual standards? Are we in the least self-critical about our work? Are we sober or immodest about our work? Do we demand precision and rigor from our each other? Do we examine each other’s work with intense critical scrutiny and speak our minds freely in assessing it? Or do we try to keep all our interactions civil, gentlemanly, and diplomatic (perhaps so as not to give the appearance of dissension in our ranks)? Does the mood of our movement alternate between the smug and the indignant – smug when we hold the upper hand, indignant when we are criticized? Do we react to adverse criticism like first-time novelists who are dismayed to discover that their masterpiece has been trashed by the critics? Or do we take adverse criticism as an occasion for tightening and improving our work?
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm
To be clear, I do not think Axe and Behe are approaching criticism in the same way. I have been far more directly in my critique of Axe than Behe too. The invitation I continue to issue to both of them is to engage on real scientific questions about their work.
I hope so. I am sure time will tell.