Faith Well Grounded

Indeed, YOU are generalizing a bit with this post, by picking out a single blog and using it to discredit anyone who takes issue with Behe's testimony. I can show you several similar blog posts that lack any mention of the blatant lies by the defendants.

Hmmm... I wasn't aware that I was using it to try and discredit "anyone" who takes issue with Behe's testimony. I used it to point out the high mileage that his detractors have gotten out of the story. I've used it to question whether Behe actually lied. And I still don't see the evidence that he has.

He stated that the manuscript was sent out to 5 people as opposed to only two. He stated that "they" read it more carefully than others usually do in the review process, and I've seen nowhere that anyone has shown that he didn't believe that to be the case when he made the statements. (And that's not mentioning the word-play that he didn't actually say "it was sent out to 5 scientists, all 5 of whom read it more carefully than...")

Dr. Morrow admitted in the quote concerning the reviews that:

When I reviewed Behe’s book I was much more polite than Doolittle [when he reviewed it], who didn’t mince words. Eventually Behe found another publisher, so he’s right; it was peer reviewed. What he doesn’t say is that is was rejected by the first set of reviewers [indicating that there were even further reviewers after that time?].

Apparently, Dr. Morrow (himself a scientist familiar with the definition of "peer review") would agree with Dr. Behe that "Darwin's Black Box" was reviewed. So, I guess it is the fact that they were negative reviews that makes Dr. Behe a liar?

It is no surprise that Doolittle, whose theory get dissected by Dr. Behe in the book being reviewed, would take issue with it. As for Dr. Morrow, I haven't read his review from the time, but if it follows the same lines that his quote did, then I can see why his negative review wouldn't deter publishing "...Black Box".

I will say, unequivocally, I am (as practically every professional working biologist I have every met) convinced by the overwhelming body of evidence that Darwin’s concept of evolution, and its subsequent modifications by the last 150 years of investigation, is the correct, and the best explanation for the great cornucopia of living creatures with which we share this planet. I’m absolutely appalled by Behe’s arguments, which are simply a rehash of ideas that Darwin considered and rejected. There is not a shred of evidence to support intelligent design, and a vast body of evidence that argues against it. It is not a scientific hypothesis, it simply the philosophical wanderings of an uniformed (or disingenuous) mind.

That isn't a dissection of a theory. It is an emotional response of self reassurance that actually ignores the content of the book.

Behe states in the book that the vast majority of academia disagrees with his theory, but offers the evidence anyway. He makes the case that the evidence that evolution relies on doesn't hold up under modern scrutiny. He makes the case that much has changed since Darwin (thus the "Black Box" title), so it makes little difference if Darwin rejected the ideas. He offers what he considers evidence to counter Darwinian evolution, so the "no shred of evidence" line is misplaced, especially considering that even the evolutionist camp designates reality as "apparent design." Closing with a personal attack still doesn't mean that he dealt with any of the science involved.

Now, again, I haven't read the particulars of the review, but (again) if the review took the same line as the quote, well... As a matter of fact, per my last post, Behe posted correspondence centered around publishing a defense of his science. The "senior adviser" to the journal responded very similarly in review, as in never touching the science but instead hanging the proverbial hat on self-reassurance and personal attack. Behe responds for himself there and I have a feeling it is a mirror of his response to such as the above quote (and review if it followed the same lines).

The term "peer-reviewed" is understood to describe the academic process associated with journal articles. Attaching that term to Behe's book suggests one of two things: ignorance or dishonesty.

Again, seeing how Dr. Morrow should be familiar with the definition of peer review, and that he attached the term to Behe's book... Which would that make him, ignorant or dishonest?

(At any rate, I love that you're back on the site. Much love, brutha...)