Sunday, January 25, 2009

Behe blackballed at Borders?

Notwithstanding my deep philosophical disagreements with ID theorists (familiar to readers of The Last Superstition), I do respect many of them and condemn the thuggish treatment they’ve gotten at the hands of certain Darwinians. So while browsing at the local Borders last night, I was dismayed to see that the esteemed Michael Behe’s books seem to have been relegated to what someone or other apparently regards as an intellectual ghetto, or at least a residence less exalted than “science.” Both Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution had “Biology” printed on the category section of the price sticker, but this had been crossed out and replaced by hand with “Western Phil.” And that is where I found poor Prof. Behe – hanging out somewhere between Alain Badiou and George Berkeley. Having checked the Borders website, I can confirm that this was no prank pulled by some Darwinist customer. Behe has been unnaturally selected out of the “Biology” category; indeed, he isn’t even welcome in “General Science.”

Of course, from my point of view this is an upgrade, since metaphysics is the queen of the sciences. But I hardly think it was meant that way. An ideological statement by the Borders higher-ups? Just askin’.

(I remember years ago finding in another Borders that every copy they had of John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime, a trade paperback, had been mispriced at a jaw-dropping $120 – not hand-written either, but “officially” printed out on the price sticker. An attempt on the part of some crazed leftist employee to discourage purchase of said book? Or just a glitch? Again, just askin’.)

6 comments:

Warren said...

This is rather funny, since it's really the Darwinians who tend to push philosophy disguised as biology (although, to be fair, they're mostly too philosophically unsophisticated to realize that that's what they're doing). Projection, anyone?

Eric said...

How's this for another couple of outrages: at my local Barnes and Noble, Dawkins's 'God Delusion' is in the science section, and Hitchens's 'God is not Great' is in the philosophy section! I'm no fan of Behe, but there's a much stronger argument to be made that he's doing science than there is that either Dawkins's book is scientific, or that Hitchens's book is philosophical! Then again, this is the Northeast, so...

John Farrell said...

I wonder if this is regional. I always Find Behe's book in the biology section in the Boston area Borders stores.

(Of course, they've long since stopped carrying my book....hrumph)

J said...

Behe raised a few interesting points regarding the incompleteness of Darwinian theory; however, moving from "there appear to be gaps" (say in regards to evolutionary theory explaining the complex biochemistry of cells, etc) to "those gaps require a Designer, and that Designer is God" was, frankly, preposterous. So the bookstores are correct to file it in metaphysics file, along with "Hylo-morphic theology for Dummies".

For that matter, Behe commits an "ad ignorantium" fallacy: if not explainable by Darwin (at this time, anyways--though many biologists say otherwise) , then MUST be due to the Almighty. Nyet! That should even offend a hylo-morphicist, it would seem.

The Argument from Design (or Watchmaker, back in the day) does not lack a certain force, and some atheists too readily dismiss it--including Hume, perhaps: who simply calls it an irrelevant analogy. It may be a relevant analogy--yet not at all a necessary argument, and does not belong in a science classroom, but in the ........Hylo-morphicism 101 course at your local papist indoctrination center (funded by private funds tho).

Anonymous said...

J said ... Behe commits an "ad ignorantium" fallacy ...

This is not true. Professor Behe does not say I don't know how evolution could bridge this gap, therefore God must have done it.

Professor Behe asserts that evolution could not bridge the gap. He backs his assertion with a scientific argument.

His argument may be unconvincing. It may even be fallacious. But he does make a scientific argument that it is impossible for evolution to create certain complex biological structures.

SE said...

Whatever the merits of Behe's books, they belong in the science section.