Continuing the discussion from Darwin Devolves: The End of Evolution?:
@NLENTS here is #5. They say our review borders on fraud.
Perhaps Swamidass and company didn’t find Behe’s responses to Miller convincing. But to fail to acknowledge that he has actually responded to Miller borders on academic fraud. I will give the authors here the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps Swamidass and company didn’t bother to look at the book they cited to claim that Behe ignores Miller’s critique. In that case, their falsehood wouldn’t be intentional. It would just be sloppy and unprofessional. Either way, their failure to acknowledge that Behe has responded to Miller doesn’t reflect well on them.
It seems he might have missed this: Darwin Devolves: Miller's Coagulation Pathway Proposal.
I’m fairly surprised how ugly this has gotten. He also writes:
But here again, Behe has responded extensively to Durrett and Schmidt. He even demonstrated that Durrett and Schmidt made a calculation error, which “introduce[d] a 30-fold underestimate of the waiting time” in their estimate, an error Durrett and Schmidt later conceded. Again, perhaps Swamidass and his co-authors aren’t convinced by Behe’s responses to Durrett and Schmidt. But remember that the larger point Swamidass and company are trying to make is that these are examples where Behe has ignored evidence that goes against his views. To fail to acknowledge that Behe has in fact responded on these points is indefensible.
He is not responded to them IN HIS BOOK. He did not alert readers to these controversies, and just asserts that he is correct. We would love to engage in dialogue with Behe and the DI on these points. We have invited them before, and are still willing.
Perhaps Swamidass and his co-authors will respond that Behe didn’t include these responses in his new book.
That is our point.
On another note, some one needs to remind West that I am not a Darwinist.