Dave Ussery on Michael Behe:
In spite of strong protestations from many (including myself) in their reviews of that work, Behe still clings to the idea that no one has ever published anything about the evolution of these complex molecular machines. “Despite the amazing advance of molecular biology as a whole, despite the sequencing of hundreds of entire genomes and other leaps in knowledge, despite the provocation of Darwin’s Black Box itself, in the more than ten years since I pointed out that a situation concerning missing Darwinian explanations for the evolution of the cilium is utterly unchanged” (page 95).
Again, the interested reader is invited to visit PubMed, type in “cilium evolution” and see for oneself: are we to believe that articles with titles like “The evolution of the cilium and the eukaryotic cell” and ‘Origin of the cilium: novel approaches to examine a centriolar evolution hypothesis” simply don’t exist? Perhaps if one closes their eyes, and clicks their heels three times, thinking, “They don’t exist, they don’t exist”, maybe these articles can simply vanish!
(Bold is added by me.) This misrepresents Behe’s argument and then ridicules him. Behe did not claim that “no one has ever published anything about the evolution of these complex molecular machines.” He claimed that no one has offered “a Darwinian explanation for the step-by-step origin of the cilium.” There is an enormous difference.
I looked at your textbook on Google books, like you invited. You mention Edge of Evolution in a footnote, call Behe a “creationist” and misrepresent his argument (again). You say, “some creationists who oppose evolution claim that there is not enough diversity in bacterial populations for evolution to occur.” That is not Behe’s argument.
If you quote Behe accurately, everyone could see that he is looking for “a Darwinian explanation for the step-by-step origin of the cilium.” p. 95.
I plan to post a longer passage from Behe’s book showing how seriously Ussery misrepresents him, and how misleading Ussery’s quotation is.
For another example of a Ussery misrepresentation of Behe, go here.
Behe quotation in context, pp. 94-95:
How do Darwinists explain the cilium/IFT? In 1996 in Darwin’s Black Box I surveyed the scientific journals and showed that very few attempts had been made to explain how a cilium might have evolved in a Darwinian fashion–there were only a few attempts. Although Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller argued in response that the two-hundred component cilium is not really irreducibly complex, he offered no Darwinian explanation for the step-by-step origin of the cilium. Miller’s professional field, however, is the study of the structure and function of biological membranes, and his rejoinder appeared in a trade book, not in the scientific literature. An updated search of science journals, where experts in the field publish their work, again shows no serious progress on a Darwinian explanation for the ultracomplex cilium. Despite the amazing advance of molecular biology as a whole, despite the sequencing of hundreds of entire genomes and other leaps in knowledge, despite the provocation of Darwin’s Black Box itself, in the more than ten years since I pointed it out the situation concerning missing Darwinian explanations for the evolution of the cilium is utterly unchanged.
Further comments on the scientific literature are in footnotes 13 and 14.