Lenki's Reply to Behe's Gentle Comment

It’s also the case that evolution remains “hot” for many non-scientists, and that’s wonderful. Whether for secular or religious reasons, we humans are deeply interested in where we came from and how we came about. In my own small way, I take pleasure in knowing that my lab’s research helps people get a glimpse of how evolution works.

I’m concerned, though, when these scientific and religious perspectives get intertwined and confused , even when they concern those big, important questions that interest all of us. I get even more concerned when I see what I regard as non-scientific ideas (such as “intelligent agents” introducing “purposeful design” by unstated and untestable means) being used to undermine the admittedly imperfect (and always subject to revision) understanding of evolution that science provides to those who want to learn. And I am most disturbed when these confusions appear to be part of a deliberate “wedge” strategy with ulterior sociopolitical motives. People will undoubtedly have diverse views about whether scientific explanations are adequate and/or satisfying ways to understand the world, but I see danger in trying to undermine scientific methodology and reasoning to advance religious beliefs and political goals .

Behe really changed his tone, didn’t he?

1 Like

Well, they are trying to recover I think. They are doing so by being nice to Lenski right now, and singling me out as the bad apple.

1 Like

I think he finally realized how deeply into his mouth he stuck his foot with his flawed ‘polar bear’ example and is now trying for a graceful recovery.

1 Like

As I recall, he called @art and @nlents “incompetent” for pointing this out to him.

Somehow I doubt that. I don’t expect I’ll ever see the day when an IDist/creationist of Behe’s standing capitulates such a major point.


To be fair, Behe didn’t exactly name names…

1 Like

Was there any doubt to whom he was referring?

Just trying to be friendly. And leave open other possibilities. After all, Matti Leisola clearly missed the point of Behe’s book, if Behe’s response to Nathan’s blog post is any indication. Maybe Leisola is the incompetent reviewer.