Creationist Michael Behe is "edging towards irrelevance."

Shrunk · #1 by **Shrunk** » Dec 06, 2014 2:59 pm

Suppose you published a book making a set of very specific claims. Then, after highly critical reviews of your book are published in major scientific journals, an international research team publishes a detailed study in the Proceedings of the National Academy (PNAS) on the very system that was the focus of your book. Great news? Well, maybe, except for one little problem. That research paper shows, in great detail, why the claims at the heart of your book were wrong. Do you walk away quietly, hoping no one notices?

Not if you’re Michael Behe. Instead, you declare victory, tell everyone who will listen that the research actually vindicates you, and then get your friends at the Discovery Institute to demand apologies from those who had criticized your book. In the strange world of “intelligent design” (ID), that’s how things seem to work. When new scientific findings support evolution, the ID crowd tries to spin things around by pretending they actually contradict it. They’ve done this before, and they’ll probably do it again.

I've written this brief web posting to explain, in detail, why the ID arguments are wrong. Far from confirming Behe's claims about the evolution of complex features, the new research actually shows why these claims fail....

http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolutio ... ehe-1.html

bert · #2 by **bert** » Dec 06, 2014 5:36 pm

From the link (last page, last paragraph)

The real apology, which is long overdue, should be promptly sent out to all of those who have been taken in by Luskin’s and Behe’s continuing misrepresentations and distortions of the science of protein evolution. Knowing the Discovery Institute, however, I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.

Correct, that would be a miracle.

Bert

Calilasseia · #3 by **Calilasseia** » Dec 06, 2014 10:15 pm

So once again, the ideological stormtroopers for mythology based masturbation fantasies (Behe, Luskin et al) have been caught in flagrante delicto lying about the science. Quelle surprise.

Weaver · #4 by **Weaver** » Dec 06, 2014 10:34 pm

"Edging towards irrelevance?" I'd say he led a head-long charge towards it, and achieved his goal years ago.

Rumraket · #5 by **Rumraket** » Dec 06, 2014 10:41 pm

http://sandwalk.blogspot.dk/2014/12/on-irrelevance-of-michael-behe.html

igorfrankensteen · #6 by **igorfrankensteen** » Dec 07, 2014 12:05 am

Well, I wouldn't use the term irrelevance myself. Irrelevant to science, sure. Factuality, of course. However, to their own little sect, they remain as relevant as ever.

Perhaps another term, such as "immaterial."

sdelsolray · #7 by **sdelsolray** » Dec 07, 2014 3:13 am

igorfrankensteen wrote:Well, I wouldn't use the term irrelevance myself. Irrelevant to science, sure. Factuality, of course. However, to their own little sect, they remain as relevant as ever.

Perhaps another term, such as "immaterial."

"Lying little shit" explains him quite well.

Shrunk · #8 by **Shrunk** » Dec 07, 2014 1:09 pm

It's worth mentioning that Behe's chloroquine resistance argument rests almost entirely on a figure given in a paper by Prof. Nicholas White. I was curious as to whether White was aware of the misuse to which he research was being put, so I sent him an email about it. Turns out he had never even heard of Behe (which is funny and revealing in itself), and his comment on Behe's claim was "Sounds nuts". I haven't seen any other response from him, but he's probably otherwise engaged in stuff like trying to save the world from malaria.

Which, BTW, Behe admits to believing was specially designed by God to kill us.

kennyc · #9 by **kennyc** » Dec 07, 2014 1:11 pm

Calilasseia wrote:So once again, the ideological stormtroopers for mythology based masturbation fantasies (Behe, Luskin et al) have been caught in flagrante delicto lying about the science. Quelle surprise.

Yes, imagine that!

Calilasseia · **#10** by **Calilasseia** » Dec 07, 2014 5:32 pm

Shrunk wrote:It's worth mentioning that Behe's chloroquine resistance argument rests almost entirely on a figure given in a paper by Prof. Nicholas White. I was curious as to whether White was aware of the misuse to which he research was being put, so I sent him an email about it. Turns out he had never even heard of Behe (which is funny and revealing in itself), and his comment on Behe's claim was "Sounds nuts". I haven't seen any other response from him, but he's probably otherwise engaged in stuff like trying to save the world from malaria.

Which, BTW, Behe admits to believing was specially designed by God to kill us.

Oh, the comparison sounds entirely typical. Behe as one of those Somali pirate boats, taking inconsequential snipes at the nuclear supercarrier that is Professor White. :mrgreen:

Indeed, this is one of the points I press myself when the opportunity arises, the fact that whilst assorted professional liars for doctrine are busy throwing their turds around, in the hope that some of the shit sticks, the people they're abusing in this manner are busy rolling back the tide of misery, suffering and death. As a corollary, every time creationists act as a drag anchor on progress, and cause time to be wasted dealing with their lies and bullshit, instead of being devoted to research, those creationists hamper work such as Professor White's, and as another corollary, those creationists, by doing so, have blood on their hands.

Made of Stars · **#11** by **Made of Stars** » Dec 07, 2014 8:24 pm

Shrunk wrote:Which, BTW, Behe admits to believing was specially designed by God to kill us.

If that's the case, who are we to try and find an effective prevention method?

tolman · **#12** by **tolman** » Dec 10, 2014 3:56 pm

Is Behe as incompetent and unprofessional at his day job as when he is bullshitting for the Discovery Institute, or can he be adequately competent and honest when he has to be?

CdesignProponentsist · **#13** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Dec 10, 2014 4:12 pm

Was Behe ever relevant, other than as comic relief for the scientific community?

Briton · **#14** by **Briton** » Dec 10, 2014 4:41 pm

I'm afraid he is relevant; 42% of Americans believe in creationism. That's a staggering number.

tolman · **#15** by **tolman** » Dec 10, 2014 4:59 pm

I guess he does have some relevance.

In the sense of it being relevant to the general creationism vs science issue that the best creationists seem to be able to do is come up with is a hopeless intellectual prostitute like Behe.

CdesignProponentsist · **#16** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Dec 10, 2014 6:51 pm

Briton wrote:I'm afraid he is relevant; 42% of Americans believe in creationism. That's a staggering number.

I doubt more than .01% of that 42% even know who Behe is.

Calilasseia · **#17** by **Calilasseia** » Dec 11, 2014 3:56 am

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
Briton wrote:I'm afraid he is relevant; 42% of Americans believe in creationism. That's a staggering number.

I doubt more than .01% of that 42% even know who Behe is.

I would suspect that the above-cited 42% covers individuals whose knowledge of famous people is restricted to NASCAR racing drivers, reality TV stars and Playboy centrefolds. We're dealing here with the sort of people who think that being able to do a Google search for photos of Kim Kardashian's arse, bestows upon them the same level of computer skills as Alan Turing.

CdesignProponentsist · **#18** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Dec 11, 2014 8:04 am

That is kinda what I meant, but you put it much better :rofl: