My review of Behe’s book in the Washington Post

Well, I read Michael Behe’s new intelligent-design book Darwin Devolves a long time ago, as I was asked to review it for the Washington Post. But I couldn’t say that, of course, for it would reveal that I had a prepublication copy, and that means I was going to produce a review. One can’t say that in advance. Up to this point, instead of giving my own take on the book, I gave the take of others: Rich Lenski, Josh Swamidass, Nathan Lents, and so on. At last my own review is out.

Well, we all agree: the book is, as ID books always are, junk science.

But Behe makes some truly outrageous statements in this one, especially his claim that mutations involved in distinguishing new families and similar higher-order taxa are those created by the Designer (aka God), while mutations creating lower level taxa like species and genera are random, non-Goddy mutations. To any biologist who knows how subjective groups like genera, families, and so on really are, this is arrant nonsense, bordering on lunacy.

Behe also claims (and I didn’t say this in my review), that the fossil record shows that “higher categories of classification such as phylum and class [precede] new lower levels of classification such as order and family” (p. 196), which is also ludicrous. All taxa begin as new species that result from the splitting of populations, and species themselves often continue to split and diverge to the point where groups of them (preferably with a common ancestry) can be called genera, families, and so on.

I didn’t get to mention that in my review, nor did I describe Behe’s ludicrous claim that disulfide bonds in proteins (cysteine-cysteine) are “irreducibly complex” because they hold proteins together but both of them must be in place before you get that bond. Ergo, God is required.  But there are plenty of single, free cysteine residues in proteins, which is a perfectly adaptive first step in forming those disulfide bonds. No irreducible complexity needed.

Sorry, but Behe’s book is dreadful. And that is what my review says. He and the Discovery Institute will be furious, but too damn bad. They’ve lied for Jesus too long.

Click on the screenshot to read my take on the book.


  1. Kirbmarc
    Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    The “macro vs micro” evolution trope used by ID supporters like Behe is one of the worst examples of special pleading.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

      Ugh. I know.

  2. Diana MacPherson
    Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    What is really disturbing about all this is the Library of Congress will have classified this book as a science book. So, people browsing science books, hoping to learn more about evolution could happen upon this one and get all the wrong ideas. It should be classified as a religious book. It’s a shame there isn’t a way for these things to have to meet some sort of scientific review by scientists in the field to okay it as a science book before its classified.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, my punctuation sucks. I know.

      • Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

        Was that the “Canada comma”?

      • Posted March 9, 2019 at 11:14 am | Permalink

        You maybe used a comma where I would not have, and you missed an apostrophe in the second-last word, but the comment was perfectly clear and to the point.

    • NinetyEight
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

      Is there a Dewey decimal category for bullshit?

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 8, 2019 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

        ha ha

      • ratabago
        Posted March 8, 2019 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

        244, the depreciated number for Religious Fiction?

      • Posted March 9, 2019 at 2:48 am | Permalink

        Or “bull shit”.


      • Posted March 9, 2019 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

        Several. 130 is the first one I came across.

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

      I wonder what other books are classified that way… and I wonder if there was a major effort by ID publishers to achieve such categorization…

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 8, 2019 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

        I got in a big tangle with Amazon and Chapters Canada over another ID book. Amazon moved it to the religious category but Chapters, as soon as they moved it, it got moved back. They told me this is because of the Library of Congress classification. It’s all part of the Wedge initiative.

      • Posted March 11, 2019 at 11:37 am | Permalink

        Generally as far as I can tell pseudosciences are shelved with their real counterpart as a matter of policy in LoC, at least. For example, psychoanalysis is found with psychology, IIRC.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

      Below is a screenshot of the Library of Congress [LC] record for Darwin Devolves ISBN-13 9780062842619.

      The LC uses data supplied by HarperOne who are regarded as a trusted publisher by the LC one must assume. This all happens before the LC gets a physical book:


      It is under Dewey Classification 576.8 [Mathematics & Science > Life Sciences > Evolution & Genetics > Evolution]

      Fortunately library directors & their staff can adjust the Dewey to their own purposes as long as there’s a record of the change somewhere in that library’s system. Thus a book on sewing machine repairs [Appliance Repair 643.6] might be renumbered so as to be shelved with sewing [646.2].

      In my library [UK] all that creationist & ID garbage is renumbered to fit into a “theories” sub-classification, if I go to that physical shelf [three shelves as it happens] I can find around 120 books that go from mythologies, through Lamarckism to Darwinism [original & modern synthesis], creationism, ID [including some super-dross on aliens] & panspermia [mainly Hoyle]. Great stuff! All of Behe’s bollocks is there along with other Americans & that Turkish jailbird’s laughable book. I think this local arrangement of Dewey numbers is because the university nearby is doing a course on the “controversy”.

      P.S. The LC doesn’t have to hold the physical book themselves – they keep a tiny proportion of books judged somehow to be useful to Congress – the actual book may be 1,000s of miles away. I noticed with glee that the US Army’s Fort George G Meade [that hosts & hosted some wacky cold war & post cold war projects] is storing one of Behe’s older crank books, but I’ve realised that’s only because the base hosts an overflow storage facility for the US LC.

      • rickflick
        Posted March 8, 2019 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

        Let the local libraries know I wouldn’t mind keeping all Behe’s books nobody wants to hold physically themselves. I have a barrel in the basement that would do nicely.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted March 8, 2019 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

          A Dutch library [pic below] has built their information desk out of books. Perhaps Behe is in there somewhere:

          • rickflick
            Posted March 8, 2019 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

            Very likely you’d find his books in one of the lower strata. After all, he is an old Earth creationist.

            • Michael Fisher
              Posted March 9, 2019 at 12:06 am | Permalink

              LOL. A class comment 10/10 I humbly reckon.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 9, 2019 at 12:11 am | Permalink

            Evilly, I get the temptation to run at the desk & kick it with both legs while flying sideways. It would probably turn out worse for me but it just looks so damn tempting.

            • Michael Fisher
              Posted March 9, 2019 at 12:17 am | Permalink

              LOL. You’d need a stout pair of clogs.

        • rjdownard
          Posted March 9, 2019 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

          Heck, anybody wishing to circular file a copy of Behe’s new book, send it on to me. I keep tabs on all the antievolution literature, and having Behe’s latest book without having to pony up money for it (or check out a library copy in dribbles) is help to the project. I’ve spent enough scratch on Phillip Johnson over the years as it is.

          • rickflick
            Posted March 10, 2019 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

            Congratulations. I never knew such self sacrificing heroism existed in this area. Keep up the good work and report back when the feeling strikes you.

            • rjdownard
              Posted March 11, 2019 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

              I do try. It helps to have a resilient stomach when trying to digest twaddle in bulk (some 9000 antievolution sources currently). But remember, from a source methods direction, each antievolutionist displays the method in the work, and the more they spew, the clearer that becomes. The failure to address a matter in book number one is an isolated blip; the failure to do so in three books is quite another matter. So keeping track of the full antievolution field, what they directly cite and discuss, and more importantly what they don’t, allows empirical methods measurements to be made (like how few core fact claimants there are in antievolutionism, only around 60, or how as a group they’re missing around 90% of the data field they would need to account for at minimum in order to graduate to a plausible alternative to the current evolutionary paradigm).

              • rickflick
                Posted March 11, 2019 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

                Do you have a web site where your work can be followed?

              • rjdownard
                Posted March 11, 2019 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

                Yep. Nothing fancy with pdf postings, links to the books I’ve done so far, comments and questions always welcomed (there’s also a mirror site with html drafts of the modules at I’m doing a weekly “Evolution Hour” (with occasional scientist guests, like Swamidass and Lents … hey Jerry, would love to have you too) discussing creation/evolution related topics most every Wednesday at 5 PM Pacific time.

                I have the obligatory Facebook page, and also am active on Twitter @RJDownard (actually quite a handy platform, as many a scientist is on it, where they give heads-up on their cutting edge work). And of course, a place to joust with the many, man, many creationists there, big and small.

                I’m a newbie at all this, so stumbling along as best I can, trying to fight the good fight, trying to connect up with a network of like-minded people to combat woo at every juncture. And you may have noticed that lately there’s no shortage of woo to combat. Hence I keep busy.

              • Posted March 11, 2019 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

                You are posting over and over and over again on this thread, and also advertising your own site. Please do not post so much and stop advertising your own social media here, which is why you got moderated in the first place. As the Roolz state, I ask readers not to dominate threads.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 9, 2019 at 12:07 am | Permalink

        Ah yes, the Edson I poke to at chapters-Indigo explained the publisher had classified it as such and the LC had accepted it that way.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted March 9, 2019 at 12:09 am | Permalink

          The Edson? Thanks iPad. No, it is supposed to say “the person”. And not “poke” but “spoke”. My thumbs on iPads seem to often miss esses.

      • ThyroidPlanet
        Posted March 9, 2019 at 5:36 am | Permalink

        Thanks for this detail

    • ladyatheist
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

      I checked their catalog. They already have 😦

  3. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Ordinarily, the religious aura of ID might be ignored by reviewers unwilling to upset any Sincerely Held Beliefs, and focus on the arguments and science. It is heartening to see PCC(E)’s post wasting no time getting the priorities straight.

    In other words : excellent, yet, depressing, review. Let’s hope it’s Behe’s last effort.

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

      Oof sorry – editing : of course PCC(E)’s article – and many posts here – deals extensively with the arguments and science, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

      One more edit – after just finishing PCC(E)’s review – i take back what I write about Behe throwing in the towel – instead, it might be good for Behe to retreat to his lair and begin work on a new tome to publish, in order that PCC(E) can teach us all some cool biology after he reviews it!

  4. GBJames
    Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    Sad to say we still need reviews like this in the 21st Century.

  5. Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Instead of bleating and following like sheeple people, let’s actually read the book. There is nothing like “knowing your enemy”.

    • Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

      There are so many better books to read! Check out this thread, for example:

      • Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

        Hardly useful today with the modern synthesis. As Behe notes in his book, much of the science, the real science, done in biology has had to await the arrival of amazing new technologies that we have only had for a few years. We are very privileged to live at this time in history of course, when we can actually understand so much more than Darwin did or even could have. So yeah, an interesting read, but kinda like reading a book on electronics prior to the invention of the transistor.

        • Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

          I said read the thread, which has many books describing the amazing advances since Darwin.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

            Indeed – The Greatest Show On Earth is there as well as Your Inner Fish!

            • Posted March 9, 2019 at 2:54 am | Permalink

              I think WEIT was in the thread too.


        • Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

          Whoever you are, robward, you aren’t reading comments before you hypercomment, you’re not understanding the Roolz, and you’re touting ID as serious science. That all combines to make your presence here undesirable I suggest you go post on Evolution News & Views. Oh, I forgot–they don’t take comments. Maybe BioLogos?

          • John Harshman
            Posted March 8, 2019 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

            You may be reacting to his mention of Behe rather than to what he actually says. That comment didn’t even mention ID, much less tout it, and it didn’t praise either Behe or his book. All he says is that we know much more than Darwin did (true) and that molecular techniques have greatly advanced the field (true) and that Darwin has been superseded by the Modern Synthesis and other more recent theory (true; neutral evolution, anyone?).

            Of course, it’s possible that Rob is a huge ID fan. I’m just saying you can’t tell from that post, which says nothing objectionable.

            • Taz
              Posted March 8, 2019 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

              bleating and following like sheeple

              I find that objectionable.

              • John Harshman
                Posted March 8, 2019 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

                Me too. But that’s from the wrong post. Still, it turns out from later posts that Rob is probably an IDer.

    • GBJames
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

      There’s nothing like wasting one’s time.

      Am I bleating, Rob?

    • Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

      Read the Roolz; do NOT insult the other reviewers.

    • Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

      Intellectual resources are limited. Why waste them on prima facie nonsense?

    • Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      I know the enemy: unfortunate brainwashed liars. Every millisecond spent on reading a creationist is wasted time. Indeed, some could decide to suffer for mankind in order to spare others from suffering, and read and review a creationist book. I have done it myself. But it should not be a system.

      By analogy, if you see powder labeled “Potassium cyanide”, you need not ingest it to check its physiological effects first-hand.

    • Juan
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      I thought that being like like sheep was a noble thing to aspire to according to psalm 23

      May I ask who’s yor shepherd Rob?

  6. Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    Hey Jerry, I don’t understand this comment: “They’ve lied for Jesus too long.” There are prominent non-Christian Jews in the ID movement, and atheists, and Hindus, and Muslims. So this comment kinda comes across a bit weird.

    • GBJames
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

      Just because Muslims lie for Mohammad, Hindus lie for Ganesha (and many others), and religious Jews lie for Yahweh, doesn’t mean that Behe doesn’t lie for Jesus.

      Behe, the Discovery Institute, and American creationists in general are overwhelmingly Christian. They lie for Jesus.

    • Juan
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

      He’s talking about the Discovery Institute in particular, not the ID movement in general.

      Are you a supporter of ID Rob?

    • Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

      These days Jewish and Muslim creationists do not put forward arguments of their own but largely copy from U.S. creationist sites.

      Hindu creationists do actually have some arguments of their own, that Ayurvedic sages already explained everything, predicted everything, and invented everything, long ago.

    • John Harshman
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

      Oops. Jerry was right.

      • Roger
        Posted March 8, 2019 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

        Probably the same troll as the other troll. Just giving everyone a hard time for jollies.

    • Roger
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

      It’s a Christian movement. So lying for their own religion and lying for Jesus aren’t mutually exclusive. Jesus still gets his jollies when other people lie for him.

  7. rjdownard
    Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Having examined Behe’s prior two books, it sounds like this new one merely doubles down on his mantras, especially how he imagines higher systematic categories somehow lie beyond “The Edge of Evolution” (yet not actually examining the available paleontology and their associated genetics to test whether his notions have any utility there at all).

    We can expect though for Behe’s groupies in the ID movement to wave this latest installment as another benchmark in their literature, no matter what the critics say. And of course those followers will not even try to source fact check it.

    That is what a double-down mind does tend to do, after all.

  8. Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Most of them are Christians, and “lying for Jesus” is a common trope. But yes, there are Jews and Hindus, too, though there are hardly any atheists who are creationists. I know of only one (David Berlinski), and I suspect he’s a secret believer.

    Your comment comes across as a bit weird, by the way, since you recommend that people read Behe’s book. People are welcome to, but it’s a complete waste of time and says nothing new.

    • John Harshman
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

      How would an atheist creationism work? Aliens? Time travelers?

      Then again, I suppose you could consider Periannan Senapathy ( to be an atheist creationist. There’s another guy who independently (!) came up with a similar theory, but I can’t recall his name.

      • Posted March 9, 2019 at 3:05 am | Permalink

        Fred Hoyle, I think, was an atheistic creationist (and astrophysicist). But on par for the course, his arguments against evolution (and Big Bang cosmology) are just as ignorant.


        • John Harshman
          Posted March 9, 2019 at 9:48 am | Permalink

          Nah, Fred was all about evolution from space, not creationism. And that’s not the other guy I was thinking of.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted March 9, 2019 at 9:02 am | Permalink

      I don’t think Berlinski actually endorses ID. (I recall that he specifically declined to do so during his debate with Ken Miller, Michael Ruse, et al. on Firing Line.) I think Berlinski limits himself to hostile criticism of evolutionary theory.

      • rjdownard
        Posted March 9, 2019 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

        Berlinski is a feisty and pathological contrarian (he has even doubted the Big Bang), beloved of artsy verbiage but really bad at exploring details (as I discovered some years ago in a lengthy email interaction with him, which ironically enough resulted in my penning “3 Macroevolutionary Episodes”). Berlinski tended to skim read the texts I forwarded to him (at his request), offering snarking comments, but avoiding the documentary footnotes.

        He willingly swallowed Phillip Johnson’s recommendation of a full-blown creationist paper by John Woodmorappe at AiG assailing the reptile-mammal transition, but there’s no indication then or since that Berlinski even thought to fact check any of the claims or (horrors!) move to read the original technical papers Woodmorappe was sniping at. Thus is the truculent pseudoscience method of David Berlinski seen in practice.

        • rickflick
          Posted March 10, 2019 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

          “really bad at exploring details”
          I’m sure we all know the type.

  9. Randall Schenck
    Posted March 8, 2019 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    An excellent review and direct to the point. Even a cave man gets it. Really liked the line – In the face of scientific ignorance its more productive to keep working than to punt to g*d.

  10. Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    First rate review. I doubt Behe’s publisher can pull any out-of-context “praise quotes” from it.

    • Posted March 8, 2019 at 6:16 pm | Permalink


      “Among the most vocal [advocates of ID] is Michael J. Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University whose previous books…have sold well”


  11. Derek Freyberg
    Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    When I click on either of the links in the OP, the review pops on the screen for a second, only to be replaced by an invitation to subscribe to the WaPo online to be able to read the article. Is there a free access point? – though I think our library might get WaPo.

    • Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

      In Safari you can switch to private browsing, which worked in this case. I don’t know the equivalent step in other browsers.

      • revelator60
        Posted March 8, 2019 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

        Private or Incognito windows on Chrome and Firefox will also do the trick.

    • CR
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      No problem for a WaPo subscriber. I’m willing to continue supporting a strong, free press.

      • ladyatheist
        Posted March 8, 2019 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

        + 1

    • Posted March 9, 2019 at 3:07 am | Permalink

      I could access it. It’s just that the subscribe invitation takes up half my phone screen and the button to remove it is pretty small.


      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted March 9, 2019 at 8:37 am | Permalink

        It seems to be cookie based. The private view is an option I’ll have to try – like a naughty person, I just opened it in a different browser – for me, Chrome.

    • rickflick
      Posted March 9, 2019 at 10:07 am | Permalink

      I am a lapsed WaPo subscriber so it won’t let me see the text. I just switched to another browser and I’m in.

  12. Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    It is really amusing that this book is in the HarperOne lineup of “religious, spiritual and self-help” books. You can see the company it keeps in that lineup here:

    Three of the currently featured books have titles that drop the F-bomb!!! Appropriate company, perhaps, for this pseudo-scientific book.

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

      Yet the Library Of Congress categorized it as science?

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted March 8, 2019 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

        It was HarperOne who categorised it not the Library of Congress. The LC doesn’t have the resources & relies on publishers to do that.

  13. Ken Kukec
    Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Top-flight prose, boss.

  14. Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Excellent review, which reads very well. Now counting down, waiting for creationist/ID responses that “Jerry didn’t read the book”, “Jerry fails to engage with Behe’s central argument”, or “Jerry engaged with Behe’s arguments in the book, but not with his more recent explanations”.

    3 … 2 … 1 …

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted March 8, 2019 at 4:58 pm | Permalink


      There’s a difference between doing that, and talking at length about all the things found in the book and only those things. I’m not sure what that’s called but it ought to have a name.

  15. Simon Hayward
    Posted March 8, 2019 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    So, not impressed then 😉

  16. Janet Dreyer
    Posted March 8, 2019 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    Jerry, thank you for reading and reviewing Behe’s book for us. It must have been painful, but you saved us from having to suffer.

  17. Posted March 8, 2019 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Very good. I also like the woodcut art illustration. It is perfect for this.

    • ThyroidPlanet
      Posted March 9, 2019 at 5:52 am | Permalink

      A new interpretation of “devolve”? Is that Darwin devolving a fish? I suppose if it were Darwin, there’d be a little bald spot… hmmm… looks close… otherwise, with the fancy halo, it would be the Sistine Chapel style God with a toga… or PJ’s, can’t tell… … can’t see the footwear… I’ll have to check if he is barefoot up there…

      • ThyroidPlanet
        Posted March 9, 2019 at 6:00 am | Permalink

        Ok here’s the picture:

        God doesn’t have any bald areas (I mean, RIGHT?!), nor sandals. And I’m not sure that’s a toga, so our friend in the woodcut I take to be Darwin on his early morning stroll walking the fish for a pee-pee. It’s early morning because the sun’s angle is low, and right behind his head – thus it LOOKS like a halo because of illusion.

  18. Posted March 9, 2019 at 2:46 am | Permalink

    Glad to see most of the WaPo commenters are sensible!


  19. Hempenstein
    Posted March 9, 2019 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    I’m happy to see that you went after him on the cysteine business. I remember that someone – exactly who I’ve sadly forgotten – went thru the 3D database and came up with a figure of about 50% of all cysteines being non-crosslinked. It’s mainly the internal ones that form crosslinks or are involved in liganding metal ions like Zn++.

    Also forgotten exactly, but I remember a paper about the evolution of cysteines from serines (a one-base change) across the phylogeny of some protein. IIRC, it was in TIBS (Trends in Biochemical Sciences).

    • Hempenstein
      Posted March 9, 2019 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      I think the cysteine / cystine 3D compiler may have been Janet Thornton. At least that’s the name that just surfaced in my head. Otherwise perhaps Jane Richardson.

  20. Joe Baldassano
    Posted March 9, 2019 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Thank you Dr. Coyne for your exceptional review of Behe’s most recent endeavor to lather additional lipstick on the wearisome and discredited ID pig.

    The invention of religion is Humankind’s most deadly weapon of mass destruction.

    • rickflick
      Posted March 10, 2019 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

      Amusing, and yet so tragically true.

  21. Torbjörn Larsson
    Posted March 10, 2019 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    I read that review with pleasure, it seemed* spot on!

    * Have not read the crank book, nor intend to.

  22. ThyroidPlanet
    Posted March 14, 2019 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    I wonder – How do Intelligent Design proponents know there is a single designer, or multiple?

    A watch is designed usually by more than one designer, though, there might be one, like John Harrison back in the 18th c. – but that’s more _invention_ than design…

    How do ID proponents distinguish design from invention, or manufacture for that matter?

    Seems ID is hooked on a metaphor that isn’t helping their case.

%d bloggers like this: