A important and anonymous scholar contacted me with questions about this analogy.
He writes this response,
Dennis Venema has said that the argument of Behe’s newest book is analogous to someone’s
arguing that mountains cannot be natural because the forces of erosion are always destructive,
all the while ignoring the evidence for mountain-building forces.
Now I realize that showing that a purported analogy is not truly analogous does nothing to
refute the point which the analogy is supposed to illustrate. (That’s why, by the way, showing
that a mousetrap is not irreducibly complex does nothing to refute Behe’s claim that irreducibly
complex systems require designers.) Nonetheless, showing that a proffered analogy is inapt
does reduce the obviousness of the point that the analogy was intended to illustrate.
Venema’s analogy to Behe’s argument is inapt because the forces of erosion and mountain-
building are distinct forces. By contrast, Behe’s argument, in effect, is that erosion itself cannot
account for mountain-building because it is universally and always destructive. To refute Behe’s
argument one needs to show that “erosion” itself can build “mountains.”
How would you respond to him? This thread, also, should be kind. The scholar in question is putting this forward in good faith, and genuinely wants to know our response.