Devoid of real arguments, Ken Miller has resorted to unsavory rhetoric and misrepresentations in his attempt to discredit the fine work of biochemist Michael Behe. Behe has finally responded to MillerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s antics at Amazon:
Regrettably, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s MillerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s own special style. He doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just sneer and thump his chest, as some other Darwinists do. He uses less savory tactics, too….
Call it the principle of malignant reading. HeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s been doing it for years with the arguments of DarwinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Black Box, and he continues it in this review.
I’m posting this thread since a lot of the UD readers may want to air their opinions of Ken Miller after reading Michael Behe’s response at Amazon.
[I invite UD readers to also compare my earlier take on Miller’s antics in light Behe’s recent comments. See: Ken Miller, the honest Darwinist.]
By the way, Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross managed to snooker the editors of TRENDS in Biochemical Sciences. The editors allowed Forrest and Gross to spew out an anti-Behe essay to its subscribers.
PvM (my old nemesis and almost lovable counterpart at PT) reports in Forrest and Gross: Biochemistry by design how Forrest and Gross are calling for more anti-Behe action in the wake of Dover. Apparently, the Darwinists are realizing they can only get so much milelage out of the fact the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board rubber stamped a cut-and-pasted legal opinion on their behalf. Jones’ cut-and-pasted opinion hasn’t been enough to stem the advance of ID in the court of public opinion and the free market place of ideas.
What’s regrettable is that one of the pro-ID papers Behe published was in TRENDS 17 years ago. Now this very same journal allows a smear campaign to be waged on it’s pages against him. I reported earlier on how this article 17 years ago has continued to find empirical vindication. See: Zuck is out of luck, marsupial findings vindicate Behe, Denton, Hoyle