Probably the two best critiques from that material. (Lents, Swamidass, et. al.)
"Behe asserts that new functions only arise through “purposeful design” of new genetic information, a claim that cannot be tested. By contrast, modern evolutionary theory provides a coherent set of processes—mutation, recombination, drift, and selection—that can be observed in the laboratory and modeled mathematically and are consistent with the fossil record and comparative genomics."
A bit of equivocation and ambiguity employed twice here - the phrase, correctly worded should read:
"Behe asserts that novel and context specific advantageous morphological ergodicity, comprising a homogeneity of deleterious genetic functional information and interdependencies, serve ordination/familiation in a way that suggests intent cannot be ruled out of the set of Ockhham's Razor plurality, a claim that cannot be tested. (Note, this is not a 'claim' rather a philosophical argument, if they had framed it correctly). By contrast, modern evolutionary theory provides a coherent set of processes - mutation, recombination, drift, and selection - that can be observed in the laboratory and modeled mathematically to inductively predict the likely possibility of speciation by these means alone, and therefore would be consistent with part of the fossil record and comparative genomics.
After reading Behe' book slowly over the last month, they have pejoratively and inaccurately spun Behe's contention in the first half of the quote, and then further misrepresented/exaggerated both the footprint and inference of what science has accomplished in terms of evolutionary modeling to date. In addition, one does not 'model mathematically', evolution. As a person who uses modeling and forecasting packages professionally, and has developed his own software for such activity - I chuckle at this statement. Mathematics is not sufficient to be considered congruent with 'modeling' - especially when it comes to the complex feedback, inter-dependencies and arrivals/constraints of genomic expression/allele change.
They need to separate in their minds, what Behe 'believes' as distinct from what he is scientifically requesting (is not a 'claim')... these are not the same thing and should not be conflated.
And further then, (Jerry Coyne)
Misunderstanding #3: Behe frequently speaks as though natural selection (which he often calls Darwinism) is the only evolutionary force. In reality, natural selection is joined by genetic drift, neutral theory, exaptation, gene flow, sexual selection, hybridization, punctuated equilibrium, frequency-dependent selection, and dozens of other forces. Behe constantly repeats his refrain that natural selection cannot account for everything we see in nature. Yeah, we know. And we’ve known that for a very long time.
I agree with this statement - although, this is a disputation (not refutation) based on semantics and not epistemology. If Coyne has a word which encompasses a structured model assigning objective constrains from each of the items in blue (aside from the imprecise term 'evolution') - he needs to suggest that name. I am sure that Behe would employ it. Coyne skips over the fact that we do not have a model which explains ordination in terms of "genetic drift, neutral theory, exaptation, gene flow, sexual selection, hybridization, punctuated equilibrium (this is not a model input structure nor constraint, rather an ergodicity description), frequency-dependent selection, and dozens of other forces."
These are just a bunch of nonequivalent terms thrown out as a method of plural arguing (
ingens vanitatum rhetoric to sound intimidating).
While I am on the side of Lentz and Coyne in whatever it is Coyne calls his long list of stuff highlighted in blue (and chose to not name it), my concerns are:
1. These are
ad hominem condemning quips, crafted to sound as if they impact inference to a much greater degree than they actually do.
2. They are passing off inductive model study as if it is deductive model study - and hoping the reader does not know the difference.
3. There is too much emotion and bias wound up in these authors' articles.
4. The best they have to offer is intimidating terminology - not really that ethical nor insightful from a scientific standpoint. It sounds impressive to a science enthusiast.
5. They are misrepresenting the essence of Behe's contention (not 'claim') - that intent is in the PLURALITY not in the PROOF... he is asking that this model be tested - not insisting that it has been proven.
6. They are too friggin obsessed with his religious backing... Yes, we all get this (my god I may go out of my mind with boredom of this) - get over it and address the actual hypothesis here - and its critical path:
Has Ockham's Razor been surpassed or not? If they cannot answer (nor even discern) that question - then my trust level drops enormously. This is the ethical critical path of this issue.
Bottom line, while Behe's book carries a lot of religious inertia, no doubt, I also don't need propaganda coming from the other direction. I need calm and fair representation of an opposing sponsorship; along with unbiased actual MODELS which serve ergodicity and theory of constrains sufficiently to explain ordination, and for that matter human acceleration.
That has not been done, and I get unsettled when allies boast in implication that it has been. I am debating whether or not intent is in the set of plurality on ordination and human acceleration - I have not arrived a that conclusion yet. But I would not see these rhetoricians as qualified to help me in that determination.
My take...
Science is the process of being found wrong - not seeking confirming suggestion that one was possibly right...