In a UD post below, Salvador comments on Ken Miller and his reference to a paper in Science. Ken is a master of the art of literature bluffing, and you’ll be seeing a lot of this from Darwinists concerning Behe’s The Edge Of Evolution. It works like this: Claim that “such and so has been conclusively refuted…” or “the author ignores research that has demonstrated…” or “this issue was addressed and resolved long ago…” and then cite a publication.
Those using this tactic know that very few people will actually check out the references. However, in cases like that of hostile reviews of Behe’s new book, it would be wise to do so. You will most likely discover that the “refutations, demonstrations and resolutions” are nothing of the kind, but are fanciful storytelling, speculation, misrepresentation, or wildly imaginative extrapolation from the trivially obvious.
Behe, on his Amazon blog, makes the following comments concerning Sean Carroll’s review of The Edge:
In fact, if one takes the trouble to look up the references Carroll cites, one sees that a short amino acid motif is not enough for function in a cell.
[…]
…Carroll seems unable to separate Darwinian theory from data. He writes that “what [Behe] alleges to be beyond the limits of Darwinian evolution falls well within its demonstrated [my emphasis] powers”, and “Indeed, it has been demonstrated [my emphasis] that new protein interactions (10) and protein networks (11) can evolve fairly rapidly and are thus well within the limits of evolution.”
Yet if one looks up the papers he cites, one finds no “demonstration” at all.
It should be an illuminating enterprise to track down all the literature bluffs in upcoming reviews of Behe’s new book. What this will demonstrate is that Darwinists are desperate to discredit Behe by any means available. Alas, these critics appear to have no choice in the matter, because Behe is right and they are wrong. The facts and data speak for themselves.