tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post2943205678553408029..comments2023-10-29T08:04:00.488-07:00Comments on Quintessence of Dust: Why I'm not a Behe fan, Part IStephen Mathesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-67315183029356012962008-08-26T18:38:00.000-07:002008-08-26T18:38:00.000-07:00I'm a few days late to this, but thought I would p...I'm a few days late to this, but thought I would point out my own discussions regarding Behe's latest book:<BR/><BR/>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/reality-1-behe.html<BR/><BR/>Behe has ducked the opportunity to discuss this issue with me, either in public or by private email. I find him to be genuinely evasive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-54408182226340189612008-08-11T12:20:00.000-07:002008-08-11T12:20:00.000-07:00Prof. Matheson,I look forward to Part II. This bri...Prof. Matheson,<BR/><BR/>I look forward to Part II. This brings up a point that I would like to see you do a post on, which is: given our current state of knowledge, what do you believe the actual 'edge of evolution' is. I don't know if others would also be interested, or if you have the time/desire to do such a post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-82093327952158353902008-08-07T19:32:00.000-07:002008-08-07T19:32:00.000-07:00To bob: I don't know how one would teach ID along...To bob: I don't know how one would teach ID along with evolution since by their leaders' own admission, they don't have anything to teach. I don't have a problem with discussing design and natural theology in the appropriate context, and I think that some of the questions raised by ID (e.g., origins of irreducible complexity) are perfectly legitimate ways to introduce evolutionary theory.<BR/><BR/>To jimpithecus: it's hard to tell whether Behe wants to do real research or not. I'll mention in my next post the kind of analysis I think he should do in order to advance his thesis regarding the insufficiency of random mutation. It's kind of obvious, but <I>TEoE</I> avoids any serious examination of relevant data. I think I know why this is, and your second comment gets at it, but it seems to me that we should critique Behe's ideas apart from what his motives might be.Stephen Mathesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-68804587552279611192008-08-07T16:49:00.000-07:002008-08-07T16:49:00.000-07:00He seems to be extremely reluctant to actually arg...He seems to be extremely reluctant to actually argue his case. That is very "creationist"-like in behavior. I saw Duane Gish at the University of Tennessee one night and in the q and a, we tore him apart. Yet I have absolutely no doubt that the next night, in the next town, he gave exactly the same presentation.Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-15892400148251923822008-08-07T12:25:00.000-07:002008-08-07T12:25:00.000-07:00Confronted with the reality of superfast evolution...<I>Confronted with the reality of superfast evolution of domesticated organisms, he redirected the discussion to an irrelevant (but technical-sounding) consideration of "developmental plasticity."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. And these kinds of redirections (with comments closed, of course, at his Amazon site) are apparently considered 'responses' adequate enough to impress his gullible fans.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-64622739617554107722008-08-07T10:41:00.000-07:002008-08-07T10:41:00.000-07:00And as has been pointed out before, when he was on...And as has been pointed out before, when he was on the stand in Dover, under oath, Behe admitted that by the standards of his own paper (w/ Snokes, 2004) an irreducibly complex trait in fact could evolve by Darwinian natural selection, in 20,000 years.<BR/><BR/>Not surprisingly, most of his fans aren't interested in his testimony.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for writing this, Steve. A great post. In particular, a great service to Catholics who can be easily fooled by Behe's writing.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-49507996059773082242008-08-07T08:01:00.000-07:002008-08-07T08:01:00.000-07:00Do you think ID should be taught along with evolut...<I>Do you think ID should be taught along with evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>Not in a science class.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-74269962210661185682008-08-07T06:40:00.000-07:002008-08-07T06:40:00.000-07:00Do you think ID should be taught along with evolut...Do you think ID should be taught along with evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-49591513217393136412008-08-06T23:18:00.000-07:002008-08-06T23:18:00.000-07:00Thanks. I was going to read _Edge_, but now I don'...Thanks. I was going to read _Edge_, but now I don't think I need to.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-49261162599066323842008-08-06T19:48:00.000-07:002008-08-06T19:48:00.000-07:00I read most of the transcripts of the Dover trial ...I read most of the transcripts of the Dover trial and one of the things that struck me was that Behe seemed to want to carry out honest research. The lack of peer-reviewed papers does not surprise me, though since, there is just no way to operationalize ID. I think that is why most ID supporters criticize evolution. They have no where else to go.Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-13582227949442820872008-08-06T17:09:00.000-07:002008-08-06T17:09:00.000-07:00Related to you mentioning Behe bypassing the peer ...Related to you mentioning Behe bypassing the peer review process in his controversial work, I just yesterday was listening to a luncheon with he and Fritz Schaefer at Rice University in 2002 and the subject of the peer review process was brought up and Behe was specifically asked why he didn't submit his ideas to the peer review process before publishing them. I don't remember his exact answer (nor how convincing it was) but it was kind of interesting to hear him talk about it.<BR/><BR/>Here's the link if you are interested (there's video and audio). It's about 11 minutes in.<BR/><BR/>http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/458 <BR/><BR/>BryanBryan Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04144487212639973542noreply@blogger.com