The steps toward evolutionary progress

| 9 Comments

Over at the Discovery Institute’s Media Complaints Division, Michael Behe seems to be a wee bit concerned by the attention that a recent Nature paper is getting, moaning that, “It seems some scientists have discovered that one way to hype otherwise-lackluster work is to claim that it discredits ID.”

OK. To start with, watching Michael Behe whine about someone else using ID to hype “otherwise-lackluster work” creates a concentration of irony so dense that four mining firms have put in bids for that post. Sorry, but I had to get that one out of my system. Now that I’ve more or less managed to get that minor issue out of the way, let’s look at what, for lack of a better term, we will have to call the “substance” of Behe’s complaints.

Read more (at The Questionable Authority):

9 Comments

My wish: Behe quiet.

What Behe really means is:

“It seems some scientists have discovered that one way to hype otherwise normal progress in science is to claim that it discredits a scam that pretends that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ qualifies as a better explanation.”

Seems what Behe is saying is, if research is filling in some of the gaps where I said God was hiding, then I need to backpedal far enough to say those aren’t really gaps, and they weren’t really the gaps I demanded get filled in Dover, and filling them doesn’t really *mean* filling them in, and this research doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know, so nothing has changed and nothing WILL change, regardless of any conceivable research results.

Time to move those goalposts…again. All together now: one, two, three, HEAVE!

Re “creates a concentration of irony so dense”

neutronium?

Henry

Behe wave with his hand and says: “These aren’t the gaps you’re looking for”

Re “creates a concentration of irony so dense”

neutronium?

Henry

Whatever it is, clearly it’s dense enough to block all logic rays.

The thing that disturbs me is the Nature editors unshakeable insistance on treating scientific creationism (there should be some agreement to return to calling all kinds of “evidence against evolution” by one name) as an academic position instead of a dishonest scam. They’ve done this for decades, and it appears just as naive now as it did in the 80’s. It spawns similar naive notions throughout the scientific community, like the editor of the “The Scientist” suddenly discovering the controversy one day and deciding, apparently while in the shower, that the thing to do is “teach the controversy”. Now that, at long last, US academic societies and research policy makers have been dragged, over the course of several decades, to accept the threat of the scam seriously, perhaps its time to concentrate lobbying efforts on the UK and the Nature editors.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 4, column 7, byte 651 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Mike Dunford published on February 2, 2007 4:54 PM.

Harun Yahya Spams the French was the previous entry in this blog.

New Mexico Update: Disco Plays the Usual Cards is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter