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 bloggerfs complaint implies that scientific conclusions donft 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 isnft 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.