Discoveroids Promote Behe’s New Book

Most of you know about Michael Behe, a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow. He’s a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and he has tenure, so he’s never been Expelled.

His colleagues at Lehigh are so impressed by his brilliance that they publicly disassociated themselves from him by issuing this statement: Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”. Also, as most of you know, Behe was the Discoveroids’ star witness in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. We wrote about his catastrophic appearance there in Michael Behe’s Testimony.

You’ll be thrilled to know that Behe has written a new book, and the Discoveroids have been furiously blogging about it. The first time was a couple of days ago. That was Darwin Devolves — Preorder Behe’s New Book; Plus Video Course on Intelligent Design!, in which they described him as the “Father of Intelligent Design.”

Here’s the book’s listing at Amazon: Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution. The Discoveroid post says:

Behe shows that science itself has defeated evolution and how it points now — definitively — to design. This is the choice we all face: cling to a failing theory or open our minds to the new idea that is bound to replace it.

A day later the Discoveroids plugged the book again, in Hypocrisy Watch: What to Expect When Behe Book Comes Out. John West warned their drooling fans that Darwinists would attempt to equate their “theory” of intelligent design with creationism so as to avoid discussing its scientific merits.

We didn’t bother with either of those posts, but today they’re plugging the book again. Their latest post is titled Evolutionist Attacks Behe Book’s Title. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Wow, this is lame. Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution Is True has learned of Michael Behe’s forthcoming Darwin Devolves: The New Science about DNA that Challenges Evolution. … Of course he’s unhappy about it, but check out the ridiculous objections. He doesn’t like the title:

Klinghoffer doesn’t provide a link to Coyne’s post, but here it is: Behe has a new anti-evolution book. Coyne hasn’t read the book yet (nor have we), but he knows who Behe is and what intelligent design is all about, so he doesn’t say much more than we’re saying here. All Klinghoffer can do is pluck out the most trivial thing Coyne says and he quotes that:

Let me point out here that the phrase “that challenges evolution” has an unclear antecedent, either the new science that challenges evolution — what he clearly means — or the DNA itself that challenges evolution. Bad title!

Klinghoffer flies into full attack mode, and tells us:

Since we’re nitpicking, “that challenges evolution” is a relative clause, not a phrase. (A clause has a verb in it.) And there’s nothing “unclear” about what the relative pronoun “that” refers to. DNA is a molecule and obviously a molecule in itself doesn’t “challenge” an idea such as evolution. But the “New Science about DNA” can, and does. Coyne himself says that’s what Behe “clearly means.” So if it’s “clear” according to Coyne, how can the antecedent be “unclear”?

Powerful stuff! But somehow we doubt that Coyne is limping away to recover from his wounds. Klinghoffer continues:

Coyne threatens to read Behe’s book: “I’ll have more to say about it after I’ve read it.” Yeah, sure. He’s said as much before and, as far as I can recall, not followed up on it.

And this is from Klinghoffer’s final paragraph:

But here is the lamest thing of all: a prominent participant in a debate, decrying an idea he doesn’t understand and on which he hasn’t bothered to educate himself.

Well! That takes care of Coyne. They won’t be hearing from him again. (That was sarcasm, dear reader.) But what about your Curmudgeon? We don’t understand intelligent design either. Nobody does. That’s because it’s a vacuous, nonsensical dogma that claims to explain everything better than evolution does — but which has no evidence to offer — except pointing to specific biological details and mumbling that the magical designer did it– blessed be he!

Anyway, we expect that the Discoveroids will continue to blog about Behe’s book, and we’ll probably ignore it — unless their posts are particularly amusing.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Discoveroids Promote Behe’s New Book

  1. LOL! I said I would say something more about Quammen’s book before I read it, and then put a review in the Washington Post. I will indeed read and review Behe’s book. As for the claim that I don’t understand intelligent design and haven’t bothered to educate myself, that’s just an arrant lie. But this is what you expect from the flacks at the Discovery Institute.

    Rest assured: Behe’s book will get my scrutiny and a review that it merits.

  2. Jerry, if you give the book the scrutiny and review that it merits, you can justifiably ignore it.

  3. LOL again. Given that it’s going to get some attention, I think it needs at least some sort of public reply. Check out Behe’s Wikipedia page; each of his books is followed by a recounting of criticism. Without that criticism, you’d think his ideas went unopposed.

  4. “open our minds to the new idea”
    IDiocy is new?!

  5. Michael Fugate

    It is published by HarperOne:
    HarperOne is committed to publishing the most important books across the full spectrum of religion, spirituality, health, personal growth, social change, relationships, and creativity, adding to the wealth of the world’s wisdom by stirring the waters of reflection on the primary questions of life and inspiring readers to make change, both inside and out.

    Science? not so much…

  6. Karl Goldsmith

    I see the book isn’t available for another three months, so send a review copy to Jerry, surely David could sort that.

    And as for HarperOne, I have said before, this is the religion imprint of Harper.

  7. Karl Goldsmith

    Surely as we will be celebrating twenty years of the Wedge, it is a must buy book. They might actually have something to show for those twenty years!

  8. I wonder why creationists only extol “intelligent design” as something opposed to evolution. Do they agree that, for example, benzene rings occur because of electron orbitals shared by carbon atoms, or did their favorite god (or some other one) have to stick them together.

  9. @abeastwood
    As I recall, didn’t one of the Jack Chick comics cite Scripture in favor of direct divine action in atomic or nuclear physics?

    One of my hobbyhorses is that the arguments used “for” Intelligent Design are at least as good against reproduction as they are against evolution. Moreover, those arguments have been (in several cases) so used in the 18th century, by the preformatonists. And the preformationists actually had a real alternative to explain the phenomena – they weren’t just nay-sayers. And that a case can be made that the sciences of reproducton pose more difficulties for traditional Chrsitian doctrine (including Scriptural proof texts) – they encroach upon the singular relatonship between the individual and one’s Creator (while evolution treats only an abstraction like a population, species or kind – only, at most, a concern to the non-orthodox Universalism).

  10. I wonder if he’s going to touch on common descent. Or has he changed his mind? The Discoveroids 1000-page magnum opus “Theistic Evolution” has a whole chapter slamming common descent.

  11. These days all creacrappers accept common descent one way or another. YECers accept it because there are too many species to fit and survive on a small boat, so they combine it with hyper-accelerated evolution. IDiots accept it because they want to look sciency. They all reject Darwinistic evolution though. None of them ever has specified when exactly “goddiddid” and when “naturalism diddid” so your question is unanswerable. Neither Behe ever has made up his mind on the question which species exactly stem from common descent and which ones don’t. And if he never has made up his mind he can’t change it either.
    The only thing most of them promote unambiguously is special creation of Homo Sapiens, ie “I ain’t no kin of no monkey”. In the end that’s all that matters to them. ‘Cuz religion.

  12. @FrankB
    I may be mistaken, but didn’t Behe accept the possibility of common ancestry of humans with chimps and other apes?

  13. @TomS
    In the introduction to his “Darwin’s Black Box” Behe seems to accept common descent. I understand it to mean that all livings things share a common ancestor. Other Discoveroids never accepted that.

  14. @TomS: you very well may be correct – Behe is a peculiar chap anyway (“astrology is science”). Then he’s the exception who confirms the rule.

  15. Cruzing to Victory

    “Anyway, we expect that the Discoveroids will continue to blog about Behe’s book, and we’ll probably ignore it — unless their posts are particularly amusing.”

    Now there’s a shocker! These are the premptive words of someone who hasn’t got a clue how to answer Behe’s claims. What would TSC do without the omniscient Wikipedia? Claiming that he’ll ignore the Discoveroids’ blog posts on Behe’s book provides our host cover for not having to showcase what a complete dunce he [TSC] really is.

    In fact we’re coming up on the 2 year anniversary of TSC’s very conspicuous silence on this video over at ENV. To date Curmie’s commented on 1 of 4 ENV posts on Darwin Devolves. I’m guessing that ratio will increase.

  16. There appears to be no effort anymore to disguise ID from religious creationism. But the DI continues to try to masquerade their ID drivel as science using their magical green screen.