No Gil, your Big Bang nonsense “illustrates” nothing of the sort.
Before the level of empirical evidence for the Big Bang built up, it had lower acceptance, and its plausibility would have depended more on ideological/psychological factors. After the level of empirical evidence for it built up, it had higher acceptance, and its plausibility would have depended less on ideological/psychological factors.
I tried to split out the Big Bang discussion, leave comments about Behe in the original thread.
It was originally called “Big Bang” in mockery before the evidence was conclusive, and the name stuck. 
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
That depends on what you think the topic is. What you are discussing is actually not material to the retraction, which was the result of a fabricated quote. Instead, you and others are interested in what Behe has said/written about “plausibility” of ID. As @Puck_Mendelssohn explained earlier in the thread (and he should correct me as necessary), that whole “plausibility” thing is relevant if/when someone starts talking about defamation. As far as any of us knows, defamation is not a part of the retraction decision. It’s interesting to me that PS is more interested in whether Behe, the discredited scholar, embraces dingbattery than in whether and how another Christian scholar achieved the same discredited status.
Thread titles and themes have not mattered at PS for a long time, so I don’t really care about whether the meandering discussion is consistent with the intended topic, but for what it’s worth: I started the thread because I was interested in issues surrounding retraction, correction, and (somewhat more tangentially) scholarly malpractice. @Dan_Eastwood was right, IMO, to try to maintain the topic and intent of the thread; I didn’t ask for him to attempt that, nor am I surprised that it failed, but it was the right call.