Jason Rosenhouse has already noted that Tom Woodward opined that "in the next six to twelve months, Darwinism will go into a steep nose dive as the result of Behe’s new book." How is this "tremendously important" book going to change the landscape of ID? Early indications appear to say ... not at all.
To begin with, let’s look at the postings on the Discovery Institute’s blog Evolution News & Views. Since May 30th (i.e. in the past two weeks) there has been a single posting (4% of total) on Behe’s book, a posting that merely noted that Behe appeared on Michael Medved’s radio show (this compares to 13 postings on Gonzalez’ tenure denial). No discussion of Behe’s work, no claims about how it would be the final nail in the coffin for Darwinism, nothing.
Maybe their podcast ID The Future will deliver the goods. Ah, a single post with no comments allowed. Hardly a rich discussion of the work.
Let’s try Uncommon Descent. Here we do a little better - five posts on Behe (17% of total) as opposed to four on Gonzalez. The posts are in themselves instructive: two are attacks on Mark Chu-Carroll’s critique; one is a parody review; one notes the Medved appearance, and the last posts Sean Carroll’s review in Science without comment (apparently because "Behe can’t respond to this for at least a week so let’s give him a hand by fisking it").
I know. Let’s try Access Research Network’s The ID Update. Here we see three posts (13% of total), compared to four on Gonzalez: a notice that the book is available for purchase from ARN, a review posted from Amazon.com, and an attempt to dismantle Sean Carroll’s review.
Lastly, there is Telic Thoughts, a relative oasis of deep thought in the ID-osphere. Here there’s only one post (5% of total), a plaintive query whether anyone has read the book. Interestingly, there have been no posts on Gonzalez in the past two weeks.
There you have it - in the past two weeks, the silence has been remarkably deafening regarding The Edge of Evolution - of the 95 blog posts I counted, only 10 dealt with Behe while 20 dealt with Gonzalez.
Why the relative silence? One is tempted to say that the Gonzalez case dragged attention away from Behe, but that is probably erroneous. I’d have imagined that the Discovery Institute would have had a full court press ready to go, with Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Nelson and flacks like Denyse O’Leary and Jonathan Witt ready to go with extended discussions of how Behe has killed of Darwinism once and for all. But no.
Is it perhaps, as some have suggested, that Behe’s has given too much to evolution in accepting common descent and natural selection, leaving ID with a designer that is instead the "Great Mutator" (as Jerry Coyne has called he/she/it/they), a designer that may be unpalatable to the majority under Johnson’s "Big Tent."
You decide.
- Log in to post comments
Interesting. Maybe this is just step one in Behe's becoming a reformed scientist.
(imagine how the DI will turn on him then)
Excellent research and post, but you forgot to (or decided not to include)"Overwhelming Evidence" in your ID blog survey, or as I call it, "Overwhelmingly Dense", Demski's ID blog for the Teen IDer. IF they had any posts on Behe's book in the last 2 weeks, it would be 33% of the posts, and the last 10 posts there track back to 7 weeks ago.
Guess it goes to show, kids today just aren't as dumb as Dembski thinks they are. And of course, thanks to your research and post, it looks as if Americans are turning out to be not as dumb as Dembski and friends think they are too.
Maybe your comment about the "landscape of ID" means, that the ID and DI fellows will have to get real jobs soon.... say as landscapers?
The comments/forums on Amazons page for Behe's book aren't doing him any favors. Some of the creationists are pissed at him for "selling out" while the other just keep offering lukewarm defenses. They seem to understand that it's a dud even though they can't/won't admit it. I must admit, I've had a lot of fun tearing apart creationists on there for the past few days. It's one of my few guilty pleasures. :-)
There's no slogan, no "smoking gun" against evolution (by evolutionary, rather than creationist, means). I suppose "irreducible complexity" can still be used as a slogan, but it's become so chafed and strafed that it's hardly going to raise flagging spirits much.
One of the most serious problems may well be that Behe bit into the logic of ID and: "Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts." I mean come on, that's exactly the kind of conclusion that IDists and creos have almost always avoided, no matter how much their "logic" points to it.
Is anyone going to get behind that? It goes against most YEC claims that the "devil did it" or that it's somehow part of "the curse." And we know that ID has little or no support beyond YECs and a smattering of OECs. Behe still seems to have some pretensions to making ID a science (one reason why, reportedly, his claims are so much reduced in the latest book), but few of his readers do (for them science=truth, so they're automatically scientific in their statements). Why would they promote something that goes against their "truth," only to leave themselves vulnerable to the reasonable conclusion that God is satanic?
Some of the laughable mistakes no doubt take their toll as well. Behe "predicting" (post-diction, based on his erroneous knowledge) that IFT complexes will be involved in all cilia, and failing even to fit his "prediction" to the evidence post hoc, can't exactly inspire confidence in IDists who have paid so often for mistakes in the past. Naturally, that wouldn't matter if Behe was presenting an orthodox Xian (in their view) theology and had some good slogans and seeming knock-out punches against the hated "Darwinism," but why promote a book that will do little more than make them look foolish to everyone?
I'm guessing that Tom Woodward made his "prediction" well before Behe had been so well fisked. It'll go down with Dembski's predictions of "Waterloo!" for Darwinism, and his empty boasts about what would happen if scientists were forced by the court to answer IDists' claims (both he and the DI managed to back off of that pre-Dover, showing how little they ever believed their own pretensions).
The truth is that Behe's view of evolution, even if it were to win out, is about as hostile to the theologies of the creos as PZ's view of "Darwinism" is, or indeed, it may be worse. PZ, after all, doesn't credit God for designing P. falciparum, while Behe does. And for once, the fact that Behe has no evidence for his claims likely is important to the IDists and creos, since few if any of them want to credit their heavenly tyrant with creating malaria, even though they credit him for creating hell.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
C'mon now, they're throwing him a party!
Be there!
Disco assures that
/creo style qutation
And EN&V says "Edge of Evolution promises to be as insightful and provocative as Behe's Darwin's Black Box...".
How good does it get?
LOL! Their experience as professional bullshit artists would surely provide fertile ground for designing more floral arrangements.
Notice how it's always "Darwinism", and never "evolutionary biology," that will "go into a steep nose dive"? And notice how it's always the latest book that's supposed to that? I don't know about you, but when someone trumpets that claim, I take it as an admission that all previous attempts failed.
Hey, I was a landscaper once. That's hard work, dude, a lot harder than what they do in Seattle...
They'd make lousy landscapers, too, since they keep insisting it's impossible to get from one hill to the next.
Hey, who was reading talk.origins when Darwin's Black Box came out? Remember the flood of creationists who rushed in, claiming that "irreducible complexity" disproved evolution?
This is a completely different reaction. It's kind of creepy, actually. I think all the ones who've read EE are sitting there, stunned, not knowing how to deal with it, and not seeing how to use it. There's no easy refutation of evolution, and for sure, there's no empty spaces of ignorance where they can tuck Jesus. Behe's Designer is a Jesus who artfully designs plagues that kill millions of people. Ouch.
One typo: I think you meant "full quart press" rather than "full court press." Although the slip is understandable considering the related subject of Dover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Court_Press
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that normal landscapers produce the fertilizers they need, but I meant to imply that IDiots are used to such practices. Keeping the difference got "lost in translation" between my funny bone and my bone head. :-(
This post (and PZ's follow-up) have been added to the grand little list.
Behe is a mole. He will come out one day and declare that he was wrong all along and that people should just ditch ID altogether. His sleeper cell status will probably expire after 20 years or so, so look for his big awakening is about 5-7 years.
Baby Jesus cries when he's sick from the Designer's carefully-made malaria.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
PZ Myers said: "Behe's Designer is a Jesus who artfully designs plagues that kill millions of people. Ouch."
A "Jesus" that Behe admitted under oath at the Dover trial might no longer exist. Those creationists who were emboldened by "Darwin's Black Box" (despite Behe's admission of common descent) and strangely silent now must be really smarting over that. I guess even Morton's Demon can only go so far.
Speaking of predictions of Darwinism's death...anyone recall Tom Bethell's famous pronouncement in Harper's way the hell back in 1976 (if I recall correctly)? These guys are like the Jehovah witnesses, they never give up hope in death...
I've been doing some speculative thinking about this.
Behe's latest work, given what's been said above, will be something he'll regret bitterly because [1] real scientists have trashed it conclusively almost from the moment it hit the bookstands, and [2] the tinfoil hat brigade among the creos will wonder if he's secretly working for the other side. Putting in his book the idea that their nice cuddly God deliberately designed things to kill people in horrible ways, once the implications sink in, will make him about as welcome as Manuel's "pet Siberian hamster" at Fawlty Towers. After all, he's just done a hatchet job on God. The mental gymnastics that will be needed to accommodate this in Fundiform World⢠will be too ridiculous even for the most spaced-out of their ilk, and that is saying something ... assuming of course that any of them actually think about what he's written as opposed to simply adding it to their collection of parroted mantras about "evilution".
Let's just sit back and let this ticking bomb detonate, shall we? :)
Many creationsits have always been a bit unhappy with Behe's view of common descent. Some creationists in the Northern Virginia area refused to hear him speak at the big pro-ID conference in McLean in 2006. This was before his recent book.
I think the relative silence is is because the Creation Science Museum opened (and that's the latest round of excitement), and the Baraminology Study Group met recently, Tom Woodward's book party, and Jonathan Moneymaker's book (Explore Evolution), Tipler's Physics of Christianity, and lot's and lot's of other things.
Darwin's Blackbox was kind of by itself when it premiered in 1996. Nowadays, there's a never ending stream of ID books, creationist books, websites, and news related things, as well as lots of PR events. In addition, the creationists are getting back in the headlines (good and bad)....
I myself found out that Behe had a book in 2000 with Meyer and Dembski called Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute) which they were selling at the Discovery Institute even which Jason Rosenhouse also attended. So, he had written at least one book prior to this one that got little press....
I'd estimate, in the last 6 years, there have been 100 or so new pro-ID or creationists books written. Behe's is only one of them now. I don't think the relative silence is necessarily because Behe ticked off the creationists any more than they have been ticked off at Behe already.
Me personally, I think he's a great guy....
I don't think the relative silence is necessarily because Behe ticked off the creationists any more than they have been ticked off at Behe already.
Many of us pointed out that he's also getting more embarrassing, you know. Both inside and outside of the creationist movement.
Here's the real question, however. Why have nearly all of you creationists in the "ID movement" pretended that you don't have severe disagreements with the evolutionists who claim creationist mechanisms, such as Behe and apparently Dembski (at least at times)? Surely a serious scientific model wouldn't put up with rank error on either side.
Well OK, I guess I couldn't help but answer my own question with the answer that you're not serious about science. That's pretty much the overall answer to all questions of why IDists and creationists say the things they do.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Salvador,
While you are here, would you mind confirming what I have heard, that you actually think that the evidence shows the earth to be far younger than what mainstream science, Behe and OECs claim, and that human and chimp lineages originated independently?
The concept may be foreign to pseudoscientists, but in science, one can think that someone is a "great guy," but with differences much less that that between Behe and the typical YEC, they'd have heated, public debates on their differences. Only the science, of course, without any irrelevant references to their beliefs in God or their personal philosophy.
Frank J,
You heard correctly. I think the case for Young Earth has a chance. I am posting discussions on the topic at website under construction at www.YoungCosmos.com.
I was at the BSG yesterday (the same place that got Rick Sternbern in hot water). More PhD's matriculating through the system that are YECs. I saw Kurt Wise and Marcus Ross there. There will be more in the future. I told Ross YEC science was horrible 20 years ago, and he agreed. We both think the science end is much better today. You'll can see that for yourself over the next year at YoungCosmos.com.
There is a rift between the Old Earth ID crowd and the YECs, with the YECs expressing hostility and the Old Earth ID crowd having mixed feelings toward YECs (usually very little hard feelings).
Whatever problems they may have amongst themselves, they pale when compared to the hard feelings they shared over individuals like Larry Moran and John Patterson who threaten to deny diplomas to their children. Until that situation changes, the YECs and Old Earth ID proponents will be united under as big tent.
Salvador
Seems science denialists are claiming to spread their thin soup of pseudoscience in wide circles. Take care, it will be very transparent.
I think you missed the point where Behe hasn't answered criticism, except by accepting common descent everywhere and by changing strategy from impossible IC to improbable IC.
He is a bleeding theistic evilutionist now.
Oookay, anyone who thinks science is a discussion club must be locked into a dorm where the keepers can wipe the drool off the face.
Scientifically, YE and C are dead issues.
Salvador says that YEC "has a chance?" Heck, even I think that YEC "has a chance." Not a good one of course, but since everything we have is falsifiable, a "chance" it is.
But thanks for being far more honest than most in admitting that your philosophical differences with those outside the "big tent" are all that matters. I don't know the details, but if anyone is denied a diploma, degree or tenure based solely on their beliefs, I'm as opposed as you are, and so are most "evolutionists." In fact, I recall disagreeing with Moran on basic philosophical issues. But if he's right about the science, then I just have to live with it. If anything, it is the "evolving" antics of anti-evolutionists that make the most compelling argument that "evolutionists" are right.
If you do think that YEC has a good chance, I hope you keep reminding everyone that biological evolution is just one of many things in science that it would falsify.
So much bark, no bite. This the best Darwinist can do? Indeed your nonsense filled rants and ad hominem (IDiots, hehe) are the best indicators of how vapid your little theory is. Call me when you find that evidence, you know missing links and the like.
Sheeeesh, isn't this kind of early to be assessing the ultimate impact of Behe's new book? I mean, the book was released only about two weeks ago!
Actually, the level of response to this book has so far been remarkably high -- see
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/06/michael-behes-new-book-edg…
The book "Monkey Girl" got a lot of ballyhoo when it was released 4½ months ago but so far has only 30 customer reviews on Amazon.com -- a really popular book would have hundreds by now.
Wes wrote: " Call me when you find that evidence, you know missing links and the like."
Do not confuse absence of evidence with YOUR ignorance of existing evidence.
the next six to twelve months, Darwinism will go into a steep nose dive
This is what the 1940s-era SBD Dauntless used to do just before attacking its targets.
It is also the attack manoeuvre of that magnificent bird of prey, the Peregrine falcon.
Not all that nosedives is necessarily crashing and burning.