Final note on Behe & the new book

I mentioned a few days ago that Behe's book had already been battered by experts, and now Prof. Lynch documents the deafening silence on the part of creationists in the way of responses to the book. Both Lynch and PZ think, and I agree, that a lot of the problem is that Behe's god of the gaps is a *very small one* -- Behe accepts almost everything about modern evolutionary biology, and thus most creationists will now feel quite uncomfortable taking sides with him. As Prof. Jerry Coyne put it in his recent review:

For a start, let us be clear about what Behe now accepts about evolutionary theory. He has no problem with a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth, nor with evolutionary change over time, nor apparently with its ample documentation through the fossil record--the geographical distribution of organisms, the existence of vestigial traits testifying to ancient ancestry, and the finding of fossil "missing links" that show common ancestry among major groups of organisms. Behe admits that most evolution is caused by natural selection, and that all species share common ancestors. He even accepts the one fact that most other IDers would rather die than admit: that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other apes.

Why does Behe come clean about all this? The reason is plain. There is simply too much evidence for any scientist to deny these facts without losing all credibility. "Intelligent design" is desperate for scientific respectability, and you do not get that by fighting facts about which everybody agrees. But with most of evolutionary biology accepted, what's left for a good IDer to contest? Behe finds his bugbear in evolutionary theory's view that "random mutation" provides the raw material for evolutionary change.

Basically, this is the sole point of disagreement Behe finds with evo bio. Behe goes to great lengths to give the "designer" full credit for the lethal design of malaria and other parasites -- IOW, he gives a lot of substance to the "Argument from Evil Design" that I mentioned a long time ago.

This bothers most creationists. They don't like to think of their loving god as having designed retroviruses to efficiently kill us (and other apes).

Then, to add insult to injury, he accepts the common ancestry of man & apes, an old earth, and speciation. No wonder so few creationists are willing to wade in and defend him from the critiques of his book. They couldn't do it with a clear conscience, because they probably see him now as almost as bad as one of those "godless evolutionists" that they see themselves fighting against.

In closing: the next time you hear a creationist cite Behe, Darwin's Black Box, or The Edge of Evolution, immediately bring up the fact that Behe accepts common descent and nearly everything within modern evolutionary biology. Then, the creationist must focus on the sole argument that Behe makes which he would still agree with Behe on -- that mutations don't provide enough substance for natural selection to act upon. And this is where 99.9% of them will lose interest in defending the argument, due to lack of knowledge and the overall hollow ringing of such a victory (should they claim one), and jettison Behe in favor of ye olde-time creationists, like Ken Ham and Henry Morris.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism