• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Behe caught quote-mining (again)

Questioninggeller

Illuminator
Q
Joined
May 11, 2002
Messages
3,048
In Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution (June 2007), he has some interesting citations that apear to be at the very least misleading. This is nothing new as Behe has been caught before altering quotes in his 1995 work Darwin's Black Box. Well, his most recent deceitful alternations were spotted by Jason Rosenhouse.

Behe writes on pages 188-189 of The Edge of Evolution:

Mathematicians, too, were fooled, “Many theoreticians sought to explain how periodic patterns [such as fruit fly embryo segments] could be organized across large structures. While the maths and models are beautiful, none of this theory has been borne out by the discoveries of the last twenty years.” “The continuing mistake is being seduced into believing that simple rules that can generate patterns on a computer screen are the rules that generate patterns in biology.”

(Emphasis Added)
Click to expand...

when the quote is actually:

The revelation of how these stripe-making switches work clarified a long-standing question in the study of pattern formation in biological structures. For several decades, mathematicians and computer scientists were drawn to the periodic patterns of body segmentation, zebra stripes, and seashell markings. Heavily influenced by a 1952 paper by the genius Alan Turing (a founder of computer science who helped crack the German Engima code in World War II), “The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis,” many theoreticians sought to explain how periodic patterns could be organized across entire large structures. While the math and models are beautiful, none of this theory has been borne out by the discoveries of the last twenty years. The mathematicians never envisioned that modular genetic switches held the key to pattern formation, or that the periodic patterns we see are actually the composite of numerous individual elements.

(Emphasis Added)
Click to expand...

Note that the first half of the sentence is missing in Behe's quote, and lacks an ellipsis indicating part is missing.

See more at source about this quote-mining.

(It should be noted Behe is a fellow at the Discovery Institute and his books are published by Free Press.)
 
Last edited:
Seems he is following in the footsteps of midgets. This a long-time favourite tactic of most of the Answers in Genesis "scientists". Refer to Ian Plimer's book "Telling Lies For God" for a comprehensive rundown on the issue.
 
Questioninggeller said:
? Explain.
Click to expand...

Enigma was a real accomplishment. To crack it required strict attention to actual reality and rules of logic, causality, etc. Now, note that those men who did this may (who knows (or cares)) have been "devout Xtians". Nonetheless, they had to have this intense focus on reality. That is somehow very different than the focus on a fantasy world, such as we see fundamentalists pursuing.

Behe does show these qualities; if he'd been in charge of that project, we might have lost the war, the world might be ... a little bit different today.
 
mhaze said:
Enigma was a real accomplishment. To crack it required strict attention to actual reality and rules of logic, causality, etc. Now, note that those men who did this may (who knows (or cares)) have been "devout Xtians". Nonetheless, they had to have this intense focus on reality. That is somehow very different than the focus on a fantasy world, such as we see fundamentalists pursuing.

Behe does show these qualities; if he'd been in charge of that project, we might have lost the war, the world might be ... a little bit different today.
Click to expand...

I know what Enigma was. I wasn't sure who "Bebe" referred to, but it is now clear you meant Behe.
 
Zep said:
FYI, it was the Catholic Poles who cracked Enigma.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: figures.

I had this weird theory some time ago, and wondered if it could be tested in some paradymn. Here it is.

The problem is not Xtians.
The problem is not fundamentalist Xtians.
Some people are unhappy.
They are unhappy because they are a**h***s.
They become Xtian fundys.
Conclusion: Now we have A**H***S for Christ!

Now this theory says Nothing about the vast majority of people or their religioso-leaning, etc. Just some troublemakers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom