He addresses the Behe diavlog. Sort of. McWhorter states that he did not find the rebuttals to the arguments in Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution persuasive. Fair enough, but I would be curious as to what other books on evolution he has read (I think he mentioned Sean Carroll?). The math in something like John Maynard Smith's Evolutionary Genetics is really not that hard (mostly algebra). One of the major problems I have with intelligent, open-minded people, who have looked into the "debate" and are not convinced about evolution is that they know the terms of the "argument" only in the context of responses to the talking points of the antagonists of evolutionary biology. The primary literature in the field is rich, and at the most basic level rather accessible. It would be as if one's knowledge of quantum physics was constrained by the lines of response to the nonsense in What the Bleep Do We Know!?.
- Log in to post comments
McWhorter hit the middle rail on one of my pet peeves: populist pander. I admit that I'm not versed in evolutionary theory. But, I don't go on bhTV and put my good name on the line. McWhorter is a scholar and teacher, not just a guy. He has the resources and the education and can do researvh. He can consult colleagues. This part of my understanding of science: a community of scholars with a certain SOP that is self-correcting. But he pleads as if he's just a guy chatting online.
So, I ask: what's the different standards for a scientist doing a blog or diavlog, writing for a journal, or a fellow working for a think tank. My problem, because I can't talk the talk on evolution, is that Behe is part of a think tank whose goal is to undermine evolution theory and to change education policy local board by board. He's not a scientist, or is he? But then, McWhorter, a scholar in his own right, pisses all over his profession by claiming he's just a guy. Why should I accept a higher scientific standard for Behe?
... or people who have learned all they know about virology from reading HIV Denialist websites
It was amusing to see Glen Loury refusing to take a position on the question of evolution and creationism and at the same time act bemused by the scientific reaction to McWhorters fawning over Behe.
Its not even as if they need to be acquainted with the original source material to understand evolutionary biology. Reading a basic book of Dawkins, such as 'Climbing Mount Improbable', which should be accessible to non biologists, covers all the basic points that McWhorter missed. The amazing thing from his original talking heads with Behe was the fact that McWhorter didn't seem to know about the principle of co-adaptation. Behe clearly does - but he is careful to never bring it up in conversation.
It would be as if one's knowledge of quantum physics [were] constrained by the lines of response to the nonsense in What the Bleep Do We Know!?.
Excellent analogy.
People don't even need to have read any of the recent research. The counterarguments to Behe's arguments are easily derivable from just thinking about selection principles.
If McWhorter wasn't persuaded, there's something wrong with his criteria.
The irony is, that if a think tank hack like Behe made an economics-related argument that originated from ignorance or the gaps in that field's dirty laundry, Loury would protest. One doesn't need to know about evolutionary biology to understand the wedge strategy.
joseph, yeah, i was thinking the same thing. i think glenn was speaking out of solidarity with his friend though. some of the attacks on mcwhorter were rather personal and nasty...which probably ended up making mcwhorter even more likely to dig-in as he did.