Cambrian explosion News

Remember when ID theorist Mike Behe’s letter was refused by Microbe?

Spread the love

Darwin's Doubt

Here.

I responded to that paper six years ago, soon after it came out, at Uncommon Descent:

What I didn’t do then at the blog is to say that I had submitted my response as a letter to the Editor of Microbe, which he turned down. My correspondence with him is below. …

Same thing has happened at Science to Steve Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt, on the Cambrian explosion:

Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin’s Doubt in the same publication. Without explantion, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest.

Charles Marshall’s review of Darwin’s Doubt (“When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship,” Science, September 20) inadvertently demonstrates the severity of the central problem addressed in the book — i.e., the origin of morphological novelty in the Cambrian period. More.

It’s getting so that, in order to make anything like a fair-minded assessment of Darwinism or neo-Darwinism or whatever the latest term they are using to short circuit discussion of the gap between theory and evidence, you will have to read blogs, not journals.

It’s not that they don’t understand. They can’t afford to. Think for yourself.

5 Replies to “Remember when ID theorist Mike Behe’s letter was refused by Microbe?

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Censorship is the last refuge of scoundrels. It’s everywhere now. Popular Science, for example, got rid of reader comments in order to publish their propaganda of lies unchallenged. It’s a sign of fear and desperation. It’s a good sign, in my opinion. The enemy is entering panic mode. We should rejoice but watch out: the enemy is still strong; they got deep pockets and friends in high places. It will get much worse before it gets better.

  2. 2
    jstanley01 says:

    News: It looks like it’s supposed to, but the first link in the OP doesn’t go to the Behe citation.

    I would guess that the publishers’ position is that ID isn’t worth considering, so Microbe and Science deem rebuttals by Behe and Meyer moot. But if ID isn’t worth considering, then why review their books in the first place?

    Watching these kinds of antics, it’s difficult for a general reader such as myself to escape the conclusion that, when it comes to the topic of evolution among mainstream scientists, maintaining orthodoxy trumps their alleged devotion to a disinterested quest for the truth.

    In short, it smells like fear to me…

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Here’s the correct link for Dr. Behe:

    ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe
    September 22, 2013
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-microbe/

    DonaldM added a little background to the whole Behe affair that was enlightening:

    Calling Nick Matzke’s literature bluff on molecular machines – DonaldM UD blogger – April 2013
    Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along.
    Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard.
    Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past.

    And if anyone is under the delusion that Matzke would never stoop to literature bluffing, he was taken behind the proverbial woodshed here for his hatchet job on Darwin’s Doubt here:

    Calling Nick Matzke’s Bluff – June 21, 2013
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....kes-bluff/

    and especially here:

    Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75631.html

    I almost felt sorry for Matzke after reading that last intellectual beating he took from Berlinski and Hampton. Here are two more articles along that line:

    A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74221.html

    A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74601.html

    But surely Matzke would not be able to get away with this in any other science, such as in engineering! He would be eaten alive for publishing such tripe! But alas, why does he find such a willing audience in Darwinism? In which no standard of accountability ever upheld? And such misinformation is, as far as I can tell, encouraged! This level of shoddiness in science, constantly exhibited by Darwinists, is simply inexcusable!

    a few supplemental notes:

    Darwin’s Doubt – Photo Gallery of Cambrian fossils
    http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/photo-gallery/

    Darwin’s Dilemma – documentary
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxh9o32m5c0

    Dr. Stephen Meyer – Why Intelligent Design Describes the Cambrian Explosion – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfYaD0c-SAc

    Verse and Music:

    Genesis 1:20
    Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures,”,,,

    Mercyme – All Of Creation –
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkdniYsUrM8

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Stephen Meyer on PBS’s ThinkTank with Ben Wattenberg, pt. 1 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4bioiVZSP8

  5. 5
    Barb says:

    The problem is that evolution is presented as a reality, not a concept that can be questioned. You know, like any other worthwhile scientific theory.

Leave a Reply