Your moving the goal posts here. The discussion is whether Behe does research. You are welcome to disagree with his conclusions.
Not necessarily.
Sure all your points here are possible. I don’t see any real problem with his general conclusions in the book, however I could certainly be wrong.
Then why did you make the gratuitous slam about the entirety of the biology community that disagrees with Behe? At a minimum, don’t you think you should mention in the same breath that it might be Behe who is wrong and the biology consensus that is right?
Chris
If biologists are making false and deceptive claims they should be called out. The discussion and claim that Behe did not do any research is false as I have shown. If this is a consensus claim it is even worse.
Bill
I highly doubt that the entire biology community have said the Behe does no research. He does just enough to publish a paper every 5-10 years or so. Actually, I think the last couple papers were just lit reviews, so maybe I am being too generous.
By and large, the biology community does not even know Behe exists or, if they do, see him as at best a pathetic and ridiculous figure. Those who know him better have a rather worse view, for the most part. His colleagues at his own university give an indication of that.
This is not true at all.
Even our friend Larry Moran respects Mike despite disagreements. Another well respected secular scientist who blogs here admitted that his work was interesting in a private conversation. @swamidass respects Behe despite disagreements.
Ah, yes. You can feel the “respect” just dripping off the page:
Apples and oranges. I have said exactly zero about Behe’s lab work or lack thereof.
You seem to think that your reply to others in this thread means you have responded to me. But my argument is very, very different than what others have said.
I would appreciate your paying attention to what I myself have said, and responding to that.
Thanks,
Chris
This is what I was basing my argument on. Maybe you could clarify what you mean.
The community of biologists hotly disputes Behe’s books because he misconstrues the evidence he presents and because he omit vasts amounts of important evidence that need to be considered to arrive at valid conclusions.
It has exactly zero to do with how many papers have emerged from Behe’s lab at Lehigh.
Best,
Chris
.
Consensus biology is a massive, pervasive, world wide conspiracy? This is getting into tin foil hat territory.
I misunderstood Chris’s comment. He did not make the claim I thought he did.
Exactly. But one of the things the DI’s cleverer authors have discovered is that for their audience, if you cite papers it shows how well-supported your argument is, but the audience will never look up the papers to see whether they support that argument! This is greatly aided by the fact that so much of the primary scientific literature is paywalled – when looking these things up I pretty much always have to find an academic friend. I’ve got subscriptions to Science, Nature, and the journal of the SVP, but that’s about the limit of my resources for reaching paywalled content – and that’s a much better reach than the average DI follower has.
I appreciate the sentiment, Bill.
Chris
Yes, Ham’s reasoning is sound. He does good research into effective methods for sleight of hand.
I don’t think that is quite true. The community of biologists has no reason to even be aware of Behe’s books, because those books are scientifically worthless, and most biologists don’t need to waste their time reading books intended for the lay public even when they are not trash. Biologists have far more important things to dispute over. There is a small number of biologists who have volunteered their own time to explain to the public why Behe’s claims are fraudulent. Someone has to do it, and I hope these individuals, several of whom are members of this group, realize how much their effort is appreciated.
Why are you saying that gpuccio’s figure is ridiculous? On the contrary, I find it very interesting for it nicely illustrates the intractable problem that darwinists have to solve, ie., the huge information jump that occurred in the transition to vertebrates.
You will have to explain us why @swamidass once said here that Behe was his hereo?
Can we please aim for longer, more substantial comments, and a little less tit-for tat?. – Thanks
/fnord
I explained why he was my hero, though we eventually do grow out of our heroes. You can see my complete explanation here:
Phrasing it that way was deeply confusing to people though, so it was deleted. In general, do not attribute statements to me without quoting me, especially when they are controversial. Also think carefully about why you would quote something that was quickly deleted due to the confusion it caused.
@Giltil, you’ve been here long enough to be responsible for your own references. Search for it, quote and link. Please don’t ask others to confirm your own statements.