1. strangerfruit
  2. Coyne Owns Behe

Coyne Owns Behe

By jlynch on July 1, 2007.

Jerry Coyne has posted a reply to Behe’s reply to his original review of Edge of Evolution. A sample:

Behe excoriates me for claiming that his defeat (and that of intelligent design [ID]) in the Dover case was more damaging than the scientific criticisms levelled at Darwin’s Black Box. His mistake here is assuming that "victory" is more pressing in the scientific than in the social arena. But it is Behe himself who has chosen to take his challenge to the social arena, publishing his ideas in a trade book and thereby bypassing the usual scientific route of having these ideas adjudicated by his peers. Both Richard Dawkins (in his review of The Edge of Evolution in The New York Times) and myself have noted Behe’s remarkable reluctance to submit his claims to peer-reviewed scientific journals. If Behe’s theory is so world-shaking, and so indubitably correct, why doesn’t he submit it to some scientific journals? (The reason is obvious, of course: his theory is flat wrong.)

In related news, Dawkins’ review (previously behind a paywall) is now freely available.

Tags
Anti-evolution
Intelligent Design

More like this

Behe takes two on the chin
The negative reviews of Behe’s Edge of Evolution continue. Kenneth Miller has a review in this week’s Nature and Richard Dawkins will have one in next New York Times Sunday Book Review (available here for NYTimes Select customers). From the former: Behe, incredibly, thinks he has determined the…
Behe's Empty Plate
Others have mentioned Jerry Coyne’s shredding of Behe’s Edge of Evolution in The New Republic. I’d just like to highlight this paragraph as it more or less summarizes everything that Coyne has to say: In the end, The Edge of Evolution is not an advance or a refinement of the theory of intelligent…
Peer review
Last week, I mentioned that Billy Dembski is all worked up over a paper which he claimed was a peer-reviewed rejection of the climate change. The publisher, the American Physical Science, attached a disclaimer to the piece, noting that it was in fact not peer reviewed. Dembski now defends his own…
Shermer defends Dawkins Badly
In January, Michael Shermer reviewed Dawkins’ The God Delusion (TGD) for Science (see here). This weeks edition features a letter by Martinez Hewlett (Molecular & Cellular Biology, University of Arizona) which argues two points: firstly, that Dawkins' book is not a work of science, and secondly…