Thank you. That clarifies it perfectly. 
3 Likes
Still looking for someone to critique Behe without misrepresenting him. 0 for 6 at this point.
Still looking for someone to critique devolution without falling back into evolutionary circular reasoning. 0 for 2 at this point.
Where’s the misrepresentation?
It is not done on the basis of majority vote. It done on the basis of the scientific judgement of his peers. We are all giving the same assessment, and we have explained in detail the basis for our assessment.
@Edgar_Tamarian, what would it take to convince you that Behe’s work has legitimate scientific problems? Are you convincible? If it did have problems, how would you know?
On what basis do you believe this review misrepresented him @colewd? It sounds like this is just your goto (and his goto) dismissal. Note, he misrepresents evolutionary science, and we have explained in detail precisely how.
1 Like
Where has Lenski misrepresented Behe? Give examples.
We live in a science based economy. Basic research is still funded by and large by Governments in the form of Federal Grants. Look what’s happening now in the Federal Budget for 2020. Research grants are taking a big hit. So yes, their is a huge financial interest by scientists to make sure that only real science is funded. I think the reviews from LeHigh got it correct below:
By reviewing Behe’s latest book, we run the risk of drawing attention—or worse, giving credibility—to his ideas. Books like Darwin Devolves , however, must be openly challenged and refuted, even if it risks giving publicity to misbegotten views. Science benefits from public support. Largely funded by federal grants, scientists have a moral responsibility (if not a financial obligation) to ensure that the core concepts of our respective fields are communicated effectively and accurately to the public and to our trainees.
I will do review of revew of darwin devolves in that i will say,
This topic was automatically closed after 2 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.