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...)

Some gems from Judge Jones' opinon on the case:

[Behe's] testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific,
as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

In other words, Behe lied when he said ID is scientific and not religious.

Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology.

IOW, when Behe says ID is "science" he's not using the same definition as the rest of us.

By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has,
Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument.

IOW, when Behe says irreducible complexity shows that evolution can't happen, he's talking out his arse.

scientists in peer-reviewed publications have
refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition.

IOW, when Behe was shown to be wrong, he purposely changed his definition to avoid such an inconvenience.

Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)). We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.

IOW, Behe has closed his mind to the possibility of evolution.

Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. (23:61-73 (Behe)). Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe)).

IOW, well, um... WTF?

This inference to design based upon the appearance of a “purposeful arrangement of parts” is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system. Although both Professors Behe and Minnich assert that there is a quantitative aspect to the inference, on cross-examination they admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design, rather than a natural process.

IOW, Behe lied, or else his definition of "quantitative aspect" is similar to "science".

The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” (P-721).
...
Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used.

IOW, Behe lied when he said this peer-reviewed article supports ID.

None of the above rises to the level of perjury, because Behe could easily just claim stupidity. However, we know the man's not really that stupid, so I think "intellectual dishonesty" is more appropriate.