Who dares read Behe’s heresy?

_{David L. Hagen

September 8, 2007

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, was released this June 2007. Most scientific establishment reviews have been negative. e.g. See Wikipedia. However, now that schools and universities have awakened from summer, Edge of Evolution is running at Amazon.com Sales Rank: #8,778 in Books. Popular in these categories:

#3 in Books > Professional & Technical > Engineering > Bioenginering > Biochemistry

#4 in Books > Science > Evolution > Organic

#9 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion

Behe’s revised edition of Darwin’s Black Box, 2nd Rev. edition 2006, is also doing well:

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #5,452 in Books. Popular in these categories:

#2 in Books > Science > Evolution > Organic

#7 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Agriculture > Biochemistry

#8 in Books > Science > Agricultural Science > Biochemistry

Haven’t students heard that they are not allowed to read scientific heresies? Wonder if more negative reviews would help? Are Les Miserables beginning to make noise in the streets?

Comments

Les Miserables continue to tramp: Edge of Evolution continues with a high Amazon rank of #3,538. Popular in these categories: #1 in Books > Science > Evolution > Organic #1 in Books > Professional & Technical > Engineering > Bioengineering > Biochemistry #1 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Agriculture Sciences > Biochemistry What makes this forbidden fruit so much more attractive than books touting Evolution?DLH_{November 3, 2007
November
11
Nov
3
03
2007
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Les Miserables appear to be on the move: Edge of Evolution has increased from Amazon rank 8,778 on Sept 8, 2007 to #3,610 today Popular in these categories: #2 in Books > Science > Evolution > Organic #2 in Books > Professional & Technical > Engineering > Bioengineering > Biochemistry #5 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Agriculture Sciences > Biochemistry Or is it more of those negative reviews making an impact?DLH_{September 13, 2007
September
09
Sep
13
13
2007
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Ahh, but that is "Creationism" with a capital "C". The creationism conflated with ID uses the lower-case "c". And creationism is an evolving state of Creationism. Think of it as a wild-card. ;) When debating an IDist and ID is gaining ground, just toss it on the table you have been pounding on. Bada-bing, bada-boom, you win the argument by default. Imagined default, but default non-the-less.Joseph_{September 12, 2007
September
09
Sep
12
12
2007
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Creationism by Webster dictionary: ... : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis ... Case closed. The word creationist/ creationism has a wrong connotation when used with ID.Innerbling_{September 12, 2007
September
09
Sep
12
12
2007
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

nbogard sez: And to name at least one creationist who accepts universal common descent: Dr. Michael Behe. By that "logic" Darwin was a creationist: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;..." Last page, last paragraph 6th edition of "On the Origins of Species..." How did I get trapped into this nonsense? Answer that. You ran your mouth- or rather mananged to type and post nonsense. IOW you are responsible for this. What the anti-IDists don't seem to realize is that there is only ONE reality behind our existence. Science is only interested in reality- regardless of what that is. BTW my copy of "The Edge of Evolution" arrived today. (along with Wells' "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and ID")Joseph_{September 10, 2007
September
09
Sep
10
10
2007
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Even before I read what Dave wrote I was thinking the same thing. But I went to several dictionary websites and most conflate "creationist" with "biblical creationist". Even this definition which doesn't explicitly reference "God" or the "Bible"... "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed." ...would rule out someone like Behe. In principle I don't mind being labeled a creationist. The problem is that it causes confusion since it doesn't recognize the significant distinctions.Patrick_{September 10, 2007
September
09
Sep
10
10
2007
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Joseph, Dave Scott--Fair enough. If nbogard answers those questions, I will reverse my position and examine my conscience for undue judgmentalism. Just in case I am wrong, I will offer a brief historical perspective for nbogard to reflect on: Mankind has always been interested in investigating the relationship between God and nature. At times, philosophy defined the debate; at other times, science seemed to have the upper hand. What has always mattered in this discussion is in which DIRECTION the investigation proceeds. Does it move forward, that is, does it assume something about God and then interpret nature in that context; or does it move backward, that is, does it observe something interesting in nature and then speculate about how that might have come to be? If the investigation moves forward, as does CD, it is faith based; if it moves backward, as does ID, it is empirically based. Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the forward approach, in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith seeking understanding.Ã¢â‚¬Â With these thinkers, the investigation was faith based. By contrast, we discover the Ã¢â‚¬Å“backwardÃ¢â‚¬Â orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley, and others. AristotleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s argument, which begins with Ã¢â‚¬Å“motion in natureÃ¢â‚¬Â and reasons BACK to a Ã¢â‚¬Å“prime mover,Ã¢â‚¬Â is obviously empirically based. To say then, that Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm (CS) is similar to Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley (ID) is equivalent to saying forward=backward. It has nothing to do with subjective interpretation.StephenB_{September 10, 2007
September
09
Sep
10
10
2007
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

How did I get trapped into this nonsense? Answer that.nbogard_{September 10, 2007
September
09
Sep
10
10
2007
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

To answer Joseph's question, I don't have a bunch of 'creationism' definitions on file. I was making a point, obviously missed, that I've heard many definitions (mostly framed around discovery.org's definition) and you can not just simply change words you see fit to make your assumptions seem valid. I see I must have hit a nerve. I guess I've just always called a sheep a sheep. And to name at least one creationist who accepts universal common descent: Dr. Michael Behe. His creator may not be the biblical God, but it [Behe's designer] is still a creator.nbogard_{September 10, 2007
September
09
Sep
10
10
2007
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

DS, By that measure Darwin was a Creationist and the ToE a Creationist theory:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Last sentence in the 6th edition of "On the Origins of Species...".Joseph_{September 10, 2007
September
09
Sep
10
10
2007
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

In all fairness to nbogard (who is now being moderated) anyone who thinks a design inference is warranted is in some sense a creationist. The argument I think hinges on conflating "creationist" with biblical creationist. One can be the former without being the latter.DaveScot_{September 10, 2007
September
09
Sep
10
10
2007
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I am willing, at this point, to give nbogard the benefit of the doubt providing he/ she answers the following: BTW what definitions do you have on file? And from where/ who did you get them? To correct his/her PoV we must first know what it is and how it got that way. Personally I don't know of any Creationists who accept universal common descent. Dr. Behe does. How does nbogard explain that fact?Joseph_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

After having the difference between CS and ID explained to him several times, nbogard writes, "thanks for YOUR definitions, I will file them away with the rest." Joseph, you may be right in attributing such nonsense to "willful ignorance." That is the charitable interpretation. For my part, it is dishonest and juvenile; it violates all standards of good faith dialogue. It's called the "zero concession policy," which means it will not accept or admit the truth even when it is undeniable. Imagine saying that a discipline is not even permitted to define itself. As if one could say to Einstein," E=MC2 may be your definitiona, but I choose to characterize it differently.StephenB_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

nbogard, Why is it that the only people who conflate ID and Creation are the same people who know the least about both? Why would Creation organizations, such as ICR and AiG do their best to distance themselves from ID? If the Bible were falsified tomorrow ID would not care. Creation Science, on the other hand, would fall as it depends solely on the Bible as the inerrant (unerring?) Word of "God". BTW what definitions do you have on file? And from where/ who did you get them?Joseph_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Thanks for YOUR definitions. I will file them with the rest.nbogard_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

However, I still donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see the difference.
Others have given excellent descriptions of the difference between ID anc creationism, but let me say it yet another way: Creationism explains nature using the Bible as a science textbook. ID explains nature by looking at nature only. Equating the two is frustrating for both creationists and IDists because it mispresents their arguments.russ_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

DLH Good summary of the difference between CS and ID. I would hope that nbogard would respond by saying, "Oh, I get it now. I won't labor under that misconception any longer."StephenB_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

nbogard
Further per russ' comments, see
ID Assumptions at ResearchID.org
ID Assumptions

For creationism, compare e.g.:
"I also believe He created all things as described in Genesis. So I am choosing to include God in my theories rather than excluding Him."
Why creation research?

The difference is in the starting points and assumptions, between examining evidence for intelligent causation, vs assuming it and seeing how science supports particular beliefs.

ID practitioners may also believe in God, a Creator, Genesis, or they may be agnostic etc. However, ID is the effort to form scientific theories based on empirical evidence, rather than on religious texts (whether true or not).
DLH_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

mattghg Thanks for catching my typo - my apologies.DLH_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

idnet, Sounds like some of these people want a double standard. I still saw the God Delusion/God: The failed Hypothesis/etc in the science section last time I went to barnes and noble. At least Behe's book actually deals with science.bork_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

russ: "The nature of creationist and ID arguments is very different. HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a link that you might find helpful: http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....mp;id=3191" Thanks for the link, russ. However, I still don't see the difference (but nice call on "pejorative"). I tend to focus on substance rather than subjective opinions in terminology anyway.nbogard_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

I bought the book, and read it. I think a lot of reasonable people have. It updated me on the most recent fallacies in evolutionary biology, as presented by creationists.
I wonder if you should have ordered some more basic material, since you don't even seem clear on the difference between creationism and ID (Or were you simply using the word "creationists" as a pejorative?). The nature of creationist and ID arguments is very different. Here's a link that you might find helpful: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3191russ_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

It "EoE" is on its way to my mailbox. The funny part about that is I probably wouldn't have ordered it if it wasn't for all the anti-IDists saying bad things about it. Ya see in order to respond to those idiots I needed to read the book.Joseph_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Who dares to read BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s heresy? Why, Whoever cares to know the truth!bornagain77_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Maybe the sales rank reflects consumers who are researching the latest "evidence" preventing naive individuals from truly seeing the light. I bought the book, and read it. I think a lot of reasonable people have. It updated me on the most recent fallacies in evolutionary biology, as presented by creationists. I believe the book serves as a great resource for students and active debaters in preparing logical counters to arguments that may at first seem credible. Books like Behe's are an invaluable tool in the fight for reason.nbogard_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

The German translation of Darwin's Black Box was at last released this July. Amazon sales ranks today are: #7 in Books > Evolution #3 in Books > Biochemistry #9 in Professional science books > Chemistry #4 in Professional science books > BiochemistryLiberatus_{September 9, 2007
September
09
Sep
9
09
2007
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT}

There is an online petition by "informed scientists" requesting that ID books be filed under religion not science. I wonder how many of these "informed scientists" have actually read Mike Behe's book? I suspect very few. Then again they do not need to read it because they already know what it says, being of the "informed" class.idnet.com.au_{September 8, 2007
September
09
Sep
8
08
2007
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Please please please take the apostrophe out of "dares"! (Or change it to "dare")mattghg_{September 8, 2007
September
09
Sep
8
08
2007
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply