Three Misrepresentations on Darwin Devolves' Back Cover

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Some important questions, and responses, arose in the comment thread that I want to bring up to higher visibility

Behe May Not Be Directly Responsible

Though the error with Polar Bears is certainly on his footstep, the back cover may not be, and we want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

@NLENTS

No author or publisher with ethics would quote mine a negative review to spin as an endorsement on a book jacket. It’s a sign of a desperation to be taken seriously to the point of outright dishonesty. This can’t be played off as a mistake. It’s deliberately misleading and thus a form of lying. The version I reviewed didn’t have jacket blurbs yet or else I would have raised hell. I actually don’t think Behe had anything to do with it, but for my books, I was always asked to approve the jacket blurbs and I know they also confirmed the exact final wording with the blurbers themselves (bc They are often edited for space.) This looks really bad. Wow

@Mung

I actually don’t think Behe had anything to do with it

Thank you. I would go one step further and ask why he is being called out to answer for it. Are we here to discuss Mike Behe’s character or his arguments?

@NLENTS

Oh he definitely should clarify if he was involved in the deception. It’s his name on the cover. Authors should approve everything that goes out under their name. As I said, I was asked to approve all of these for my books. I’m giving Behe the benefit of the doubt as a courtesy but this looks really bad and he should apologize for the dishonesty done in his name.

This is Fixable for Behe

This seems to be a large error on someones part. This how @Nlents and I would handle this as scientists, and what we would (frankly) expect of each other.

@swamidass

This is about his arguments. The facts he uses to put forward his case call into question many things. One explanation is that he has poor character but this is not the most likely explanation.

@nlents what would you do if your publisher had done this to your back cover without approval? I would be hopping mad at them. I would send a private and public note apologizing to Orr and Shreeve, and I would publicly thank Coyne for picking this error out. I would place responsibility squarely on the publisher and myself, and thank critics for identifying this problem.

Then I would put it behind me by turning back to the rest of the book. If it came up again, I’d just keep directing people back to my public apology and retraction. Very quickly people would move on. That is how to manage the crisis in which Behe finds himself. Doing this, no one would have a right to call him dishonest.

What would you do @NLENTS?

@NLENTS

I would do all of that yes, and probably quietly break ties with the publisher after the dust settled. Very public apology would be step one for sure.

This is Not A Personal Attack

@colewd

No one is saying that Behe’s arguments are false because his publisher used quote mines to promote the book.

Doesn’t matter. This is coming in pieces and I honestly am horrified at this smear complain from respected scientists. Argue the science or I am done.

@swamidass

Please show me the smear coming from me? I’m asking questions about errors we identified in his book. I have not called him dishonest. They have called us dishonest.

How can I be painting him as dishonest when I haven’t called him dishonest? Are you not concerned about their effort to call me dishonest?

@colewd

I personally don’t think you have called him dishonest. I don’t read ENV regularly so I don’t know what they have been saying in every case.

I was referring to Coyne’s piece this am.

@swamidass

I was referring to Coyne’s piece this am.

Ah I see. Well I do not endorse all of Coyne’s language

@swamidass

I want to be crystal clear on this. The original post does not question Behe’s integrity. Rather it puts objective facts on the table. There are many explanations for these facts that do not include dishonestly, and I carefully refrained from rushing to judgement on Behe’s intentions and on his state of mind.

With three errors of this magnitude on the back of his book, I’m inclined to believe he was not consulted on it. If he was, I’m inclined to chalk this up to confusion on his part, not dishonesty. It is just so egregious an error, and so likely to be caught.

As issues continue to crop up I wonder if Behe has ever corrected one of his mistakes. That is a real question. It tells us what we can expect from him here and the extent to which we should trust his self appraisal of his work. This is not a question of integrity, per se, but of evidence.

We Are Engaging Behe’s Scientific Arguments

We are not dismissing Behe’s arguments because of this issue. We are engaging the science in depth and in detail.

@colewd

Please lets get back to the science.

@Mung

Are we here to discuss Mike Behe’s character or his arguments?

@NLENTS

Surely you’re kidding. How many articles and posts have we written about his arguments? I’m losing count! Honesty in public discourse is also an important issue. Totally fair game. You’re being argumentative for it’s own sake. Knock it off because it impresses no one.

On most of the technical details, currently, the ball is in Behe’s court. We have responded to (nearly?) all of the substantive posts from ENV from Behe and the DI. We have posed questions back to him. We are waiting for his response. With a review out from @Jerry_Coyne, @paulbraterman, and one in Evolution next week, we understand they are under the gun, and may not respond soon. We are glad to see that @Wayne_Rossiter has shown up to answer some of our questions here: Leisola: Cited to Attack Darwin Devolves, Study Devolves on Close Inspection.