Why is Behe Avoiding Boudry?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Edgar_Tamarian

Yes, i noticed more and more frequently Behe and others from ENV responded all your concerns and criticism.

For the record, they did not. They didn’t understand what was in the review, perhaps, and they certainly didn’t ask to clarify.

@Edgar_Tamarian

the article Boudry et al. discusses IC which is not topic of Darwin Devolves and you claim that the review is about the book Darwin Devolves not about Behe himself or Behe’s all work in his career. Irreducile complexity is not the main topic of his new book.

Well on this point, unfortunately, you are wrong. He includes quite a bit on IC in this book. Granted, you haven’t seen the book. So understand why ou wouldn’t know.

@Edgar_Tamarian

Note, that was the main reference we gave to refutations of his argument. The rest were supporting references.

Really?, you have not explained what does the concept of IC has to do with the First rule of Adaptation https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/656902?journalCode=qrb and with the book Darwin Devolves

As we said in the review, and repeated afterwards:

@swamidass

Author: erosion is really, really common. We see it all over the place. Here are hundreds of known examples. Mountains can’t be natural.

Reviewer: the author doesn’t address what we know about all the many, many geological processes that cause rock uplift.

Author: the reviewers don’t even address my main argument!

Well, one way he ignores things that can build up complexity is by repeatedly appealing to IC. Because of this, his argument depends at almost every juncture on IC being correct.