Two of Mike Behe’s Lehigh U. colleagues have written the most thorough and erudite rebuttal of Darwin Devolves yet. It’s long and it’s technical, but it is well worth reading every single line because they cover it all and back it up with a litany of relevant research that undercuts Behe at every turn. I applaud and tip my hat to these two.
(Let me know if this isn’t open-access. I have the PDF.)
I’ll just pull out one small quote from that review:
(This is for the “the flagellum is a motor” people).
Overall, Behe does not come out well in that review.
Yes. if you have financial obligation to refute Behe. It is a first time in human history that scientists openly admit and write in an academic journal that they have financial inetersts try to refute a scientific idea rasied by his calegue Prof. Michael Behe…
Books like Darwin Devolves, however, must be openly challenged and refuted. [because] Largely funded by federal grants, [we] scientists have a moral responsibility (if not a financial obligation)
i think this going to be an ineternational scandal
This is an incredibly tendentious interpretation of what was actually written in the review.
Does Behe disclose his financial interests? Are you concerned about his bias?
Already convered here: Evolution Unscathed: A Review of Darwin Devolves.
This topic will be on a timer to close soon.
This might be the strangest thing yet said in the many conversations about Behe and DD.
Is Behe’s book free?
Don’t all scientific fields have some obligation to communicate the findings of their science to the public, and to show where potential denialists and doubters are wrong if and when that is the case? Couldn’t the same things be said for astronomy, geology, medicine, physics, meteorology, etc. etc.? It doesn’t appear to me that evolutionary biology is way different here.
@Edgar_Tamarian, please show us where they said they have a financial obligations to refute Behe?
Rather they said they have a moral and financial obligations to accurately communicate to core concepts of their field to the public. No one should refute Behe unless it is the honest thing to do. Nonr of us is obligated to do anything but honestly communicate science to the public, and most of us do this without pay of any sort.
Don’t M.D.’s have financial obligations? I mean if some lady is going around saying rubbing a crystal on your head prevents the flu. Stop giving doctors your money. Stop funding the research. That’s potentially taking money away from the industry is it not
That is a gross misunderstanding of what the authors are saying. There concern is that science is largely supported by public money. So if worthless and unscientific ideas like Behe’s are perceived by the public as having worth, there is the risk of scarce resources being squandered in areas that will not benefit the public.
I suspect your predicted “international scandal” will not materialize.
Compare that to what was actually said:
They said they have a financial obligation to make sure science is communicated effectively and accurately. They never said they have a financial interest in refuting Behe. They have an obligation to refute Behe because receiving public support for research comes with a moral obligation to correct bad science when it pops up. Scientists have been given the public’s trust, so they need to keep that trust by trying to rid their ranks of bad science.
Added in edit:
How much money did the reviewers earn from their review? Probably nothing.
How much money will Behe make off of his book, and future books containing bad science that panders to ID/creationists? A lot more than nothing.
Food for thought.
Reviewers write;
Judge John E. Jones III roundly rejected Behe’s views
In Science, there cannot be a Judge, who judges which scientific theory is right and which one is wrong:
Financial obligations to accurately communicate to core concepts of their field to the public.
who is the judge that decides who is accurately communicates with the public and who is trying to mislead the public? If they think they are themselves are judges, whose opinion cannot be disrupted and final decision that someone is wrong: Sorry, this not science, this not even politics.
In The article, there was no single experimental evidence provided that there are mutations which are constructive.None
if a scientist is financially obligated to support or refute any scientific theory, He is not a scientist. Science is about seeking the truth, without any obligation to the public or the Government. What if Copernicus were financially obligated to pleased the public and his governments, In science there cannot be any obligation, science is done on the basis of academic freedom, not on the basis of funded by federal grants
The authors are two assistant professor, without tenure. The scientific community is their judge. Their peers are their judge. That is how science works.
Their article will be celebrated for its clarity and rigor and accuracy. It will be judged very favorably.
is there any referendum when all scientists can participate and judge Micheal Behe?
If science is done on the basis of majority vote, without looking the evidence, experimention, that is not science, worst than politcs
You’re a smart guy and on occasion I even thought you got the better of it on here. But more often than not you say something so silly and wrong, and it is shown to be silly and wrong, but you just keep going plugging away. You never say, “yeah, I was off the mark there.”. You just keep doing these crazy maneuvers and jumping through all these weird and crazy hoops to hold onto a silly argument. This is one of those times
Who is doing that?
soon, i will post my review of reviews of Darwin Devolves…that will be my first topic created…here i think, i am closing, just noted that bizzare statement about financial obligation
The only bizarre statement was yours, friend.