Like many of these types of debates about evolution with few exceptions, proponents on one side or the other conduct themselves within the confines on where they feel most comfortable in order to avoid a face to face meeting, this particular one is without exception.
Carl Zimmer, a highly regarded so-called science writer who promotes evolution while trying to attack intelligent design. He recently posted this to Michael Behe about the work Thornton had conducted, it reads as follows…
“Thornton’s new work turned up last week on a web site run by the Discovery Institute, a clearinghouse for all things intelligent design (a k a the progeny of creationism). Michael Behe, a fellow at the Institute, wrote three posts (here, here, and here) about the new research, which he pronounced “great.” Why the change of heart? Because Behe thinks that the new research shows that evolution cannot produce anything more than tiny changes. And if evolution can’t do it, intelligent design can. (Don’t ask how.)”
Carl Zimmer takes a jab at Michael Behe, falsely accusing him of being a creationist like it’s some sort of dirty word and how dare he (Behe) conclude that intelligence is the source of organized information which produces and maintains life. Zimmer also wrongly believes science and Christianity are at odds with one another which they are not. Behe responds…
“I must say, it never ceases to amaze me how otherwise-very-smart folks like Zimmer and Thornton fail to grasp pretty simple points when it comes to problems for Darwinian mechanisms. Let me start slowly with a petty complaint in Carl Zimmer’s intro to the post. Zimmer is annoyed that I think Thornton’s latest work is “great”, yet I thought his previous work published a few years ago was “piddling”. “Why the change of heart?”, wonders Zimmer.”
What Michael Behe fails to grasp, they really do get the simple points that he likes to write about, but because he disagrees with evolution it changes full range of dynamics on how they treat him. Who would really argue over a generalization about disagreeing with one study and then later on agree with another? Behe further explains by comparing it to a crane and it’s massive promise of what it could do, Behe calls this “piddling” but later on a more detailed study comes out that demonstrated a realistic evaluation on what the crane could actually do. Thus, Behe praises the work!
I believe Zimmer understands this position, that is not to say he agrees with it, but like I pointed out earlier, it’s the conclusions of science that dictates the dynamics of how he treats him! It’s a sad commentary for those who are so well educated but act so immature.