Rhetoric and Honesty

There is also a huge amount of intellectual dishonesty in Behe’s approach as he’s still presenting ID as science. It’s amazing there are still a few True Believers out there who think ID is a scientific position, not a religiously motivated political one. Behe’s rhetorical games may be effective at swaying scientifically untrained laymen but that doesn’t make his ID nonsense be correct.


Nothing I said in that post disputes what you wrote here. Do you disagree?

You’re far too nice to call out Behe directly for his dishonesty. Others of us aren’t as charitable. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Give him credit for being rhetorically strong nonetheless.

1 Like

A rhetorically strong con artist is still a con artist.


I’m not sure he is dishonest. It seems he believes his own argument.

1 Like

When Behe posted the claim no one in 20 years had even attempted to supply an explanation for the evolution of the flagellum he was being blatantly dishonest.

That was hard to understand, and @art that was one of my question for Behe.

I am sure he is not dishonest. I agree with you he has the most rhetorically strong argument among the ID guys.

1 Like

Did he have an answer? Behe may honestly believe no one succeeded in providing an acceptable (to him) evolutionary explanation but to claim no one even attempted an explanation… wow.

1 Like

You’re “sure” about a lot of things directly contradicted by the evidence.

Rhetorically strong in swaying scientifically untrained laymen; intellectually vacuous and scientifically worthless.

What I am sure about is you do not understand his argument. @swamidass is showing increased understanding.

LOL! Of course you think that Bill. Anyone who points out the many fatal flaws in ID’s “arguments” must just not understand. :laughing:

1 Like

The argument seems simple enough. The problem is not comprehension. The problem is that Behe’s argument, when fully understood, is just not compelling. If it were, ID would not have had to resort to such a record of misrepresentation and overstatement.


It is not as simple as you think. It is also very hard to get your arms around it until you are willing to accept it as a valid argument if it turns out to be a real scientific argument. To understand it as a scientific theory you must establish standards which is not a trivial exercise. Until you do this you will straw man it to death like most critics do.

If you believe the snake oil will work then you will be cured, right?

According to Behe, the type of standards needed for Intelligent Design would also turn Astrology into a science. That says a lot.

You have it bass ackwards again Bill. You have to present a real scientific argument first before anyone can begin to consider if is valid or not. “This looks Designed to me” will never be a scientific argument and that’s all ID-Creation has ever offered.

So I do think he would rephrase this. If I recall, in the video he said “serious” explanation, which might have enough subjective wiggle room on personal definitions of “serious” so as to be correct. I think he should tighten up his language here, because he surely does know that attempts have been made, and we can all agree it is his right to declare the he personally found them all unconvincing.

1 Like

Again you don’t understand the argument as you are unable to state it.

His statement was based on there not being a Darwinian explanation.