Science, E. coli, and the Edge of Evolution: Behe Responds
UPDATED: Today’s response is the fourth and final in this series of responses to critics. This reponse addresses Dutch biologist Gert Korthof and is available here.
Michael Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, has hit a nerve with Darwinists by using mainstream scientific research to highlight the distinct limits of Darwinian evolution. Earlier this week he began another series of responses to critics attempting to refute the book’s conclusions.
As I wrote in The Edge of Evolution, Darwinism is a multifaceted theory, and to properly evaluate the theory one has to be very careful not to confuse its different aspects. Unfortunately, stories in the news and on the internet regularly confuse the facets of Darwinism, ignore distinctions made in The Edge of Evolution, or misstate the arguments of intelligent design. The disregard for critical distinctions blurs the issues badly. Over the next few days I will briefly respond to four separate stories.
His first response is to a recent Science article about adaptive mutations in bacteria.
Response to a post from Panda’s Thumb.
Response to Microbe Magazine on the bacterial flagellum.
Previously, Behe responded to a number of reviews of The Edge of Evolution.
- Beyond the Edge of Evolution: The New York Times Story
- Response to Richard Dawkins
- Response to Kenneth R. Miller
- Response to Kenneth R. Miller, Continued
- Back and Forth with Jerry Coyne, Part 1
- Back and Forth with Jerry Coyne, Part 2
- Back and Forth with Jerry Coyne, Part 3
- Response to Critics, Part 1: Jerry Coyne
- Response to Critics, Part 2: Sean Carroll
- Response to Critics, Part 3: Michael Ruse
- Questions about my new book?