Mike Dunford posted Entry 2876 on February 2, 2007 04:54 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2866

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):

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #159285

Posted by David B. Benson on February 2, 2007 6:17 PM (e)

My wish: Behe quiet.

Comment #159297

Posted by Frank J on February 2, 2007 7:38 PM (e)

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.”

Comment #159300

Posted by Flint on February 2, 2007 8:18 PM (e)

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.

Comment #159308

Posted by MarkP on February 2, 2007 9:20 PM (e)

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

Comment #159314

Posted by Henry J on February 2, 2007 9:59 PM (e)

Re “creates a concentration of irony so dense”

neutronium?

Henry

Comment #159333

Posted by Marc Geerlings on February 3, 2007 1:51 AM (e)

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

Comment #159397

Posted by stevaroni on February 3, 2007 2:32 PM (e)

Re “creates a concentration of irony so dense”

neutronium?

Henry

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

Comment #159509

Posted by Mike on February 4, 2007 4:49 PM (e)

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.

Comment #159854

Posted by molecanthro on February 6, 2007 8:26 AM (e)

I agree with Mike. A bit of focus on the UK and Nature would be excellent. I’m from the US but have been living in the UK for the past 2.5yrs after I finished my MSc over here. I’ve noticed a massive attack here in the UK on an unsuspecting and unprepared public and academia.
I’ve joined a group, the BCSE (British Centre for Science Education), which works to try to stop creationism/ID from getting into schools (though it’s already been approved for Religious Education courses).
I would ask that people here join their forum…especially if you live in the UK or have any ties to the UK.
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk and go to the forum.

It does seem to be a constant battle against very well funded fundie groups that have at least three professors (none in Biology) speaking out in the press against evolution. And not many academics speaking out against ID/creationism…there are a few, but not enough.
My sense is that most people here think that what’s happening in the states could never happen here because it’s a more secular society and there aren’t the major evangelical groups here. But I think it’s getting more conservative and that outside groups have been successful in infecting some groups.