Creationists Who Rely Upon Michael Behe's Work

[MSizer]

Michael Behe lied under oath before God (as stated by judge Jones,Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board). Creationists - how can you justify using the work of a man who before God in your arguments for I.D.?

 

[Sunstone]

Jeez. Relax. It's not like he did something really wrong such as stole a collection plate, or supported homosexual rights. All he did was lie to defend the Lord.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Michael Behe lied under oath before God (as stated by judge Jones,Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board). Creationists - how can you justify using the work of a man who before God in your arguments for I.D.?

Dishonesty is, indeed, worrisome, as is intellectual sloppiness ...

 

[Nepenthe]

Dishonesty is, indeed, worrisome, as is intellectual sloppiness ...

I didn't expect to find much useful information on a Christian apologetics blog concerning evolution and I wasn't disappointed. The author is just plain wrong on the issue of Behe and peer review. Here I quote the blog's author where they write:

So, I ask again... Where is the lie? Behe claimed to have had 5 peer reviews. There were apparently 5 peer reviews.

Not exactly. This was hardly an accurate representation of peer review for any scientific paper. The reviewers of Darwin's Black Box were:
Michael Atchison who denies he even read the book but gave a tentative thumbs up for it based on a synopsis from a 10 minute phone call.
K. John Morrow savagely criticized the book.
Robert Shapiro who said the book's conclusions were false and specifically said the book would've been rejected if submitted to peer review.
Russell Doolittle was actually partially responsible for Behe's original publisher refusing to release the book. Doolittle sarcastically derided Behe's book and defense of ID as helping him realize it now "...appears that I have wasted my career. In Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe has concluded that blood clotting--Behe's "favorite pathway," as Allen Orr puts it--is simply "too complex to have evolved." Worse, he has taken one of my own articles to illustrate his view." He of course proceeds to explain why Behe is wrong.

So, I'm confused. Does "peer review" mean that everyone must glowingly praise the work and agree with the findings?

No, it means the paper actually has to be read. And yes, the paper has to be scientifically sound to pass muster, otherwise it gets rejected. Science or Nature, the two journals with the most stringent standards for publication, would leap at such a groundbreaking science as ID if there were any substantive papers. Unfortunately they do not accept summations of a work over the phone as actual peer review or an updated hodgepodge of 19th century ideas that should have died with Paley himself.

Is that what science has become in the post-Darwinian era? (If so, how has the peer review process changed so much from the time a book called "...Origin of Species" was published by a non-scientist theologian whose views flew in the face of the current scientific paradigm?)

"Post-Darwinian"? "Non-scientist"? Now we see the actual intellectual dishonesty on display here.

Seriously, I'm confused. I'm finding a bit of "intellectual dishonesty" here, but not from Behe.

I'm finding nothing even remotely related to the intellect here.

Here's some samples of Behe's intellectual sloppiness and dishonesty at the Dover trial:
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe
The Court (C): Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?
Behe (B): No, I argued for it in my book.
C: Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
B: That's correct.
C: And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
B: That is correct, yes.
C: And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?
B: I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

So Behe, under oath, admits there have been no peer reviewed examples of ID yet he continues to claim that his book was peer reviewed.

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe
C: If you could turn to page 185 of that book [Darwin's Black Box]. I'd actually like you to read -- we'll take turns here -- from the last paragraph on 185 beginning, molecular evolution, and go to the end of the chapter, which is one more paragraph.
B: Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature, in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.
<snip>...In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution, has not published, and so it should perish.

Which is just plain false; there are tons of scientifically verified peer reviewed articles that describe how molecular evolution of biochemical systems occur. Behe is either incompetent or lying.

 

[Breathe]

-- Mod Post --

Thread moved to the Evolution Vs. Creationism section.

Enjoy!

-- End of Mod Post --
​

 

[Man of Faith]

Richard Dawkins has never lied or done anything wrong!

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Richard Dawkins has never lied or done anything wrong!

I don't know. You have an example?

 

[fantome profane]

So Behe, under oath, admits there have been no peer reviewed examples of ID yet he continues to claim that his book was peer reviewed.

No he didn’t. He said that there were no examples to be found in “peer reviewed scientific journal”. His book was not published in a scientific journal, nevertheless it was published, and it was reviewed by his peers. “Darwin’s Black Box” was reviewed by many people in the scientific community (almost all extremely negative reviews). This is not an example of Behe lying.

<snip>...In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution, has not published, and so it should perish.

Which is just plain false; there are tons of scientifically verified peer reviewed articles that describe how molecular evolution of biochemical systems occur. Behe is either incompetent or lying.

Agreed, Behe got nailed on this one in the trial. Overall Behe really made a fool of himself in the Dover trial and showed the absurdity of I.D. His testimony was much more devastating to the I.D. case than anything presented by the other side. But still I have to give props to Behe for being the only scientist willing to testify for Intelligent Design. That took balls.

 

[imaginaryme]

Richard Dawkins has never lied or done anything wrong!

What's Dawkins have to do with the OP? You're sounding like an atheist, jumping into the conversation with Dawkins.

 

[McBell]

Richard Dawkins has never lied or done anything wrong!

wow.
Is that the best reply you got?

Speaks volumes in and of itself.

 

[Man of Faith]

I think I understand it now, science "corrects" wrongs, but creationists lie.

 

[darkendless]

I think I understand it now, science "corrects" wrongs, but creationists lie.

To themselves yes. Either that or they ignore huge posts, like the one i posted to you in another thread regarding geology and Young Earth Creationism which you ignored.

Science corrects wrong and science corrects science.

 

[Gunfingers]

I think I understand it now, science "corrects" wrongs, but creationists lie.

As you have been quick to point out before, lies have been made in the field of biology. Things like the Piltdown Man and archaeoraptor were deliberate hoaxes and lies. The difference is that we don't build our belief system around those lies. We identify and discard them. Behe, Ham, and Hovind have all had their lies and false data pointed out to them and they have all continued to use that false data to trick people into believing them.
That is the difference.

 

[Man of Faith]

As you have been quick to point out before, lies have been made in the field of biology. Things like the Piltdown Man and archaeoraptor were deliberate hoaxes and lies. The difference is that we don't build our belief system around those lies. We identify and discard them. Behe, Ham, and Hovind have all had their lies and false data pointed out to them and they have all continued to use that false data to trick people into believing them.
That is the difference.

I see a descripancy, evolutionists are still promoting common ancestry of all species even though creationists have pointed out that it is false.

 

[Man of Faith]

To themselves yes. Either that or they ignore huge posts, like the one i posted to you in another thread regarding geology and Young Earth Creationism which you ignored.

Science corrects wrong and science corrects science.

Sorry, I just have so much time to post so I have to pick my battles. Posts with one or two points are more likely to get a response, large posts depress me.

 

[Nepenthe]

I think I understand it now, science "corrects" wrongs, but creationists lie.

That's actually not a bad summation.

 

[Gunfingers]

I see a descripancy, evolutionists are still promoting common ancestry of all species even though creationists have pointed out that it is false.

You have said it is false. Saying it doesn't make it so. We've already shown you some of the very strong evidence of common descent.

 

[Nepenthe]

So Behe, under oath, admits there have been no peer reviewed examples of ID yet he continues to claim that his book was peer reviewed.

No he didn’t. He said that there were no examples to be found in “peer reviewed scientific journal”. His book was not published in a scientific journal, nevertheless it was published, and it was reviewed by his peers. “Darwin’s Black Box” was reviewed by many people in the scientific community (almost all extremely negative reviews). This is not an example of Behe lying.

Good point. My bad- I was wrong there; Behe wasn't lying under oath in that circumstance. I would quibble over Behe's honesty over the peer review issue in that Behe claimed it was reviewed more rigorously than an article in a refereed journal, and while it was reviewed by 5 rather than the usual 2, it was hardly under the typical academic approach to peer review (as varied as that process may be). Of course none of this was claimed under oath though.

 

[MSizer]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure he was called out on claims about having read far more literature than he actually had read. That was a flat out lie.

 

[ragordon168]

I see a descripancy, evolutionists are still promoting common ancestry of all species even though creationists have pointed out that it is false.

key word there being creationists. creationists who have no hard science to back up there claims cannot dismiss science which does have the evidence.

i dont know the specifics of the immune system. i propose that all the fluff about white blood cells is rubbish - every person has their own pacman inside them; completely undectecable but there all the same.
i have absolutely no evidence but i know i am right and all of studies are wrong.

get a creationist with a degree/doctorate in the relevant subject, give him a research grant to do all his expiriments. if he can produce a working theory based on measurable data and it can stand upto peer review (and dont claim peer reviews are biased because we all know thats BS) then we will accept that theory as part of science and begin teaching it in schools/universities.

until then creationists cannot dismiss science without anything to back it up.