Behe and Wikipedia

Why is it that the critics are the ones that write the articles at Wiki? The one on Dr. Behe is the most biased I think I've ever seen.

The writer of the article states:

After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, creationists felt that new strategies and language was necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms.

What has this to do with Dr. Behe? Did he decide this? And is this, in fact, what Creationists have done? I'm a creationist and I must have missed that memo.

Scientists argued that Behe's comments and examples were based only on a refined form of "argument from ignorance", rather than any demonstration of the actual impossibility of evolution by natural processes.

I would like a full quote, please.

gaining maximum publicity while avoiding peer-review from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his statements

Isn't it conjecture to put this goal onto Dr. Behe? How does the author know that Behe was avoiding peer review? Perhaps he knew it wouldn't get "peer review" in the usual sense. Nevertheless, his peers have reviewed it.

Furthermore, his conclusions are being evaluated, whether by him or others, as other scientists develop experiments to test his idea. That is science in its truest form. Just because Dr. Behe is not the one creating new test, that doesn't mean his idea is not scientific. Many scientists have come up with ideas and did not develop the experiments to confirm or nullify the hypothesis. Should we crucify Behe because he is one of them (besides for the fact that, as of this moment, I do not know that anyone has shown that the bacterial flagellum has any parts it does not need).

Behe's refusal to identify the nature of any proposed intelligent designer frustrates scientists, who see it as a move to avoid any possibility of testing the positive claims of ID while allowing him and the intelligent design movement to distance themselves from some of the more overtly religiously motivated critics of evolution.^[

The idea is Irreducible Complexity. As far as I know, that doesn't require the declaration of the Designer. Irreducible Complexity is the science of it, not identification of who developed the complexity.

Later on, in 2003, Doolittle's lab published a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, ^[20] which demonstrates that the pufferfish lacks at least three blood clotting factors, and still is a workable system, defeating a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex'.

I'm currently reading Behe's book. This, I have to say: just because he "missed" on one item (and this example does not really demonstrate a miss) does not doom his idea. In fact, we've seen that with Darwin and the Cambrian Explosion. This doesn't demonstrate a miss, because at some level, Behe expects to find a component of blood clotting that is irreducibly complex. Is it?

Just because the pufferfish's clotting ability is more simple than a mammal's does not mean that the pufferfish's ability is reducible. Maybe it is. I wouldn't know. That is the process of science though, because Behe's idea is leading to more experiments, ie., peer review.

Numerous scientists have debunked the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe & Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy.

Debunked in what way? Debunking by arguments from real science or arguments on the process of science or arguments from philosophy? I do not see evidence that this idea has been debunked. Albeit, I am still a student and taken up with my studies, but even if this claim is valid, that doesn't mean that the idea still can't be evaluated by science.

I say all of this, not because I think we should declare the designer in public schools, but because the freedom of thought that Behe has wisely expressed (not in peer-review, because of the professional backlash that comes with such) is in jeopardy when scientists call something "unscientific," ridicule the source of the idea saying they refused to subject the idea to review (with the connotation that it was underhanded), and then design experiments to evaluate a claim or conclusion that was so "unscientific" to begin with. If this is how we treat scientists and scientific ideas, what a sad state of affairs it must be to be a scientist.

No one saddens me more than Richard Dawkins. His name-calling is so beneath the profession, so beneath the logic of scientists that I shudder when I read anything by him. He seems to be driven to ridicule anyone who thinks differently from him. He's a Crusader of the worst type. Though this article is about Dr. Behe, it is really about so much more. It is about suppression. It may have been better for Dr. Behe that he not have published this book. Maybe not. I'm glad he did, whatever the case.

I also must say that I appreciate Lehigh University where Dr. Behe works, at this time, anyway. They say they respect Behe and his ideas, even if they do not agree with and reject them. That, I understand. Persecution, in the form of Richard Dawkins and lies or innuendo about Dr. Behe's character and goals, I do not understand.

Regi G