Amazon Vehicles Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Snacks Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer conj2 conj2 conj2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis GNO Shop Now
Customer Discussions > The God Delusion forum

Behe makes a fool of himself again at "christthetao" blog

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 1, 2011 11:50:11 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 1, 2011 11:53:30 AM PDT
John 3:16 says:
Michael Behe, one of evangelical Christianity's favorite ID-proponents, figures prominently in a recent blog article titled "Why are Americans Scientifically Precocious?" (See the March 12, 2011, blog at <<;>)

The article, written by one of those fools who has apparently deluded himself into thinking that he actually knows enough biology to take on recognized experts like Richard Dawkins, the National Academy of Sciences, etc., is pretty hysterical all by itself, but what really caught my eye was the fact that Michael Behe himself subsequently published a gushing tribute to the article. Actually, it was the blogger himself who claimed that Behe loved the article. God only knows if the blogger is telling the truth about that. But if Behe really did praise the blog article, it would indicate that Behe is as ignorant today as he was a few years back, when the full scope of his ignorance was being explored in highly entertaining detail in "The God Delusion" and in Judge Jones' opinion in the world-famous case of Kitzmiller v. Dover.

The nature of Behe's stupidity here can't be appreciated without knowing about the blog article itself. The article discusses what seems to have been a poorly worded survey designed to measure science literacy. The blogger could have made a legitimate point that when amateurs construct surveys, they frequently make laughable mistakes. (A point, BTW, which applies with equal force to a laughably inept survey on faith written by the blogger himself.) Unfortunately the blogger doesn't restrict himself to the obvious, legitimate point, but instead attacks a number of other targets and ends up making mistakes which are arguably far worse than the mistakes in the survey.

One of the key points in the article is that reading the ID-nonsense that fools like Behe put out would be a good way for students to learn valid scientific information. I wonder if the author also thinks that high school teachers should assign lengthy readings in flat-Earthism in geography class and Holocaust denial literature in history class!

Another major blunder involves the blogger's obvious lack of comprehension about the nature of science. The blogger demonstrates his cluelessness in his discussion of human evolution. One of the survey questions was "True or false: Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." The blogger objects to that question, saying: "Who can say scientifically ... that God did not reach the tip of his finger out to Adam, to tweak the reeds and make them rustle up some thought? Respondents may react to Miller's [the survey author's] reductionist tone and intellectual presumption as much as to the scientific 'facts.' To the extent that he prompts such responses, Miller measures not scientific literacy, but scientific orthodoxy."

The key point here is to remember that the survey was trying to measure scientific literacy. In the context of scientific literacy, why is God even relevant in the way suggested by the blogger? The bloggerfs complaint implies that scientific conclusions donft qualify as scientific unless they eliminate the possibility that invisible fairies, spaghetti monsters, etc., interfered, and that's nothing but evangelical rubbish.

Also, notice that the blogger implies that divine intervention is necessarily incompatible with human beings developing from earlier species of animals. In reality, of course, as Judge Jones clearly explained in his Kitzmiller opinion, there is no such incompatibility. Perhaps the blogger, instead of spending so much time reading the "heretical views" he's so fond of, should spend some time developing his critical thinking skills.

The blogger also complains about the survey author's bias. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, the blogger's own bias appears to be far, far worse! For example, in discussing one of the other survey questions, the blogger apparently concedes that lasers do in fact work by focusing light waves, but that concession raises a huge question. If magical fairies could have messed with the natural laws regulating biology, then by what logic does the blogger apparently conclude that those same fairies are NOT messing with the natural laws regulating lasers? Has the blogger eliminated that possibility in the context of lasers in the way that he implied was necessary in the context of human evolution? I rather doubt it!

And how did the blogger reach his conclusion about lasers in the first place? One suspects that he is parroting the very same scientific orthodoxy that he impugns in the context of human evolution, which raises serious questions about his ability to be consistent. The blogger argues for open-mindedness but seems to be showing how closed-minded he himself is.

And if "scientific orthodoxy," which the blogger somehow forgot to define, but which presumably means something like "the overwhelming consensus of relevant scientists" is NOT the standard by which to judge the correctness of the survey responses, then what, pray tell, IS? The author isnft very forthcoming on that obvious question either.

With its laughable blunders, glaring omissions, and obvious bias, the article is a comedy of errors written by one of those clueless evangelicals who hasn't given even a moment's thought to the issues he's blundering through.

But again the interesting point here, IMO, isn't that the silliness in the blog article itself. After all, no one is surprised when some insignificant nobody makes a fool of himself on some random blog. Rather what's interesting here is that a world-renowned IDiot like Michael Behe demonstrated his own intellectual incompetence by effusively endorsing the idiocy in the blog article.

In any case, once again, it appears that evangelical Christians like the blogger aren't interested in making sense; they're only interested in making noise. How embarrassing for Christianity that its loudest proponents also appear to be the most ignorant.

P.S. In his blog, the author appears to be encouraging "heretical views," like ID, flat-Earthism, and Holocaust denial. I will try to post my review of the blog article in the blog itself. Let's see how open to "heretical views" this blogger really is ;-)

P.P.S. BTW, I can't resist pointing out that Behe himself seems to be somewhat reluctant to entertain "heretical views." In his Amazon blog for his book "Edge of Evolution," he disabled all comments. Heh, heh, heh. What a loser. He appears to be as big a hypocrite as the blogger he's praising.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2011 2:59:56 AM PDT
Celsus says:
John 3:16

I had a look at Marshall's blog, but couldn't find any responses that looked like yours. Did you attempt to post anything there? It would not surprise me if Marshall censors out those he does not like. You may be interested to see how he boasts of his blog article on a science thread. He states:

"Yes, the skeptical response to that article has been highly revealing. None seems able to refute my basic points, and at least a couple of the more honest and less shrill ones have admitted them. Several others have sought minor, tangential points to take issue with, often in an accusatory or insulting tone."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2011 8:37:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 13, 2011 10:28:18 AM PDT
Amar says:
Yeah Celsus. I checked it out and found that Marshmallow's post is, not surprisingly, buried six feet under there as well!

Hey, check out how he makes a fool of himself with his report on:

"The Loftrino: New Meme Isolated"

and how his claims about Richard Carrier run counter to Richard Carrier's actual position on the issue of christianity inventing modern science:

BTW, I ran into his blog by accident and not by intention.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 14, 2011 2:18:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 14, 2011 2:26:48 PM PDT
John 3:16 says:
Hi Celsus.

I forgot. Thanks for the reminder. I just went to Marshmallow's blog and posted this post:

"The breathtaking inanity in Marshall's opening post is discussed in some detail in the string titled "Behe makes a fool of himself again at `christthetao' blog," which can be found in the reader forums following Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" at

"In fact, Marshall's inanity, especially about scientific topics, is a frequent source of amusement in Amazon `s reader forums. Check it out for yourselves!"

Let's see how long Marshmallow lets that stay up.

And just in case Marshmallow's blog is followed by anyone who isn't completely brain-dead, here's some more comments about the laughably inane post that Behe the ID-iot found so praiseworthy.

1. It's interesting to note that Turkey is at the bottom of the ranking list that Marshall posted. The reason that that's so interesting is that Turkey is virulently pro-ID, and Behe's work is prominently cited in much of the pro-ID idiocy that circulates in Turkey today. It could be that the association between Behe and stupidity is more than mere coincidence!

2. One section in the OP (I think it was section III) was so poorly written as to be virtually incomprehensible. (Perhaps praising nonsense like that is part of Behe's current "intellectual" endeavors.) In any case, Section III appears to imply that if a scientist formulates a hypothesis and then performs an experiment or survey that substantiates that hypothesis, then it is somehow reprehensible for the scientist to comment on that fact. I submit that that does not make any sense at all, other than to brain dead buffoons like Michael Behe.

3. I also had to laugh about the blogger's comment about the "brain-rotting Internet." He's so blinded by bigotry that he's completely oblivious to the fact that it's precisely idiotic blogs LIKE HIS OWN that contribute so much brain-rot to the Internet.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2011 7:23:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 20, 2011 7:26:33 PM PDT
John 3:16 says:

I just checked Marshall's blog. My comment is no longer shown. In other words, Marshall won't tolerate my opposing view pointing out the mistakes Marshall made in his own comment advocating tolerance of opposing views. Marshall's hypocrisy and cowardice know no bounds.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2011 9:41:31 PM PDT
Celsus says:
John 3:16

I figured as much. I guess that's the difference between a self-proclaimed scholar and a real one. Well, one of the differences anyway. There are too many to list them all.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2011 8:20:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 22, 2011 9:53:14 PM PDT
Amar says:

>Marshall's hypocrisy and cowardice know no bounds.<

You can say that again. And again. And again... Why? Because there's total disconnect from what he says and what he does.

Here's what Marshall is complaining, after having deleted your post from his blog, about Lawrence krauss for posting his post-debate analysis with Craig on Dawkins forum:

"Now that is rich. And where is this posted? In an open forum moderated by some fair-minded fellow, where people of all viewpoints will feel comfortable posting? Not on your life. On Richard Dawkins' home page."

Look at his wordings like "fair-minded fellow", "people of all viewpoints feel comfortable"; Isn't he saying he(or his blog) is none of those? If he is, shouldn't he have let your post remain on his blog?

Given that, how is it wrong for Krauss to post on a secure Dawkins site, and not anywhere else?

The irony and hypocrisy of everything Marshall says or posts is too thick even for a butcher's knife. His cowardice too. He posted a response to me in a thread of his and hours later deleted it! The guy has the IQ of a marshmallow and the backbone of a jelly fish.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  The God Delusion forum
Participants:  3
Total posts:  7
Initial post:  Apr 1, 2011
Latest post:  Apr 22, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins
The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins by Richard Dawkins (Paperback - May 1, 2007)
4.0 out of 5 stars (3,269)