Talk:Michael Behe

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

"BioILLOGICAL Sciences... misspelled purposely[edit]

I am an MS student in biology at Columbia University. I in no way endorse the views of Professor Behe, et al., but vandalizing the site is simply idiotic without defense.

I have edited it to reflect the correct spelling, Biological. Study biology people, it's truly the science of life - no reason to graffitti another scientist's website, however foolish he might seem or be.

Ex natura scientia — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

"Vandalize"? "Graffiti"? This isn't his website, it's ours, and we apparently generally like the intentional misspelling. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm still new here and finding my way, but I have to ask (beyond the goat page) how serious the articles are supposed to be? "Mike playing in his meth lab" and "bioillogical" is cute, but it seems like something I'd go to Uncyclopedia for. It makes matters difficult if someone wanted to quote ratwiki.
I can live with either RationalWiki being serious or comic relief, but its schizophrenia (and mine) makes it unclear which it's intended to be. Thanks.
--UnicornTapestry 08:40, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
We do both, and I think one can usually tell what is snark and what is serious. UC requires that articles contain no facts, we just add some jokes while dealing with serious matters. It's part of what makes the site more enjoyable to read (and write), most of us think. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:15, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

For some reason, I though he was a climate change denier[edit]

But if he's an ID defender, then that last bit about hypocrisy is totally appropriate.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He probably is a climate denier as well. It's de rigueur among the creationist crowd. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Leo Behe and God Delusion[edit]

Wow. Does Dawkins know that The God Delusion did its intended job on Michael Behe's son? - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. But I don't know that anyone but Leo Behe is the right guy to tell him... I'll email the hosts of the Non-Prophets and ask them to give Leo a nudge. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. The guy I emailed usually responds very quickly if he's able to help. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Leo In Basement[edit]

An interview with Leo Behe in the Humanist implies that his father was understanding about his atheism and there were no repercussions. This article suggests that Leo was relegated by his father to the basement. The source for this is a reedit comment by someone claiming to be Leo. It definitely could be Leo on reddit, but given that the claim is potentially libelous, is it a good idea to keep it? Is there any way to prove that the reddit commenter is Leo?

Not even on the same planet as libel. Can you post a link to the Humanist interview please? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Article Link Leo say, "I didn’t suffer any sort of restrictive backlash.." In reference to telling his parents he's an atheist. It may be that he wasn't yet ready to tell the truth in this interview, or it could be that the repercussions came after the interview.
It's an interesting interview but it comes a year after Leo is confirmed to have claimed his parents required him to live in the basement. Do you believe the Reddit AMA is bogus? It looks to me like he was just hoping people wouldn't notice a single Reddit post among 650 in which he said something that might have embarrassed his parents (it should have) that he probably got over. Unless he says the Reddit claim was false, the most we might do is add that he later changed his story. In any event the tone of this article makes me realize I need to go take a shower. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the productivity assessment[edit]

This quote's Lampe's 2005 webpage assessment of Behe's productivity. In that, Lampe takes a sociological perspective analysis of Behe's work. That Behe seems to be mostly spending his time giving talks to church groups rather than doing science, we would expect productivity to be low.

The problem is Lampe's statistics. He compares Behe's productivity with that of Sean B. Carroll, and then notes the difference between the two. Here's where the problems start.

  1. Behe and Carroll both have different areas of expertise (biochemistry and evo-devo), respectively. The two are not necessarily comparable, as it is natural for one field to be faster-moving than the other. It would be better to compare Behe with another biochemist.
  2. Secondly identify an outlier in a set of data, identifying the norm from the abnorm, you need more than two data. In other words, you need to compare Behe with other biochemistS.

Basically, the study isn't very objective. A fish (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also exceptionally petty. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)