Friday, October 21, 2005

More Behe fun

This trial is a never ending source of pure comedy from Michael Behe. First he tries to redefine the term "Peer review" and now he's trying to redefine the term "critical reviewer". This comes from the cross examination by the prosecution lawyer Rothschild when questioning Behe over his role as a 'reviewer' of the ID textbook of Pandas and People.
Q But you actually were a critical reviewer of
18 Pandas, correct; that s what it says in the acknowledgments
19 page of the book?
20 A That s what it lists there, but that does not mean
21 that I critically reviewed the whole book and commented on
22 it in detail, yes.
23 Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?
24 A I reviewed the literature concerning blood
25 clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that
1 became the blood clotting system. So I was principally
2 responsible for that section.
3 Q So you were reviewing your own work?
4 A I was helping review or helping edit or helping
5 write the section on blood clotting.
6 Q Which was your own contribution?
7 A That s -- yes, that s correct.
8 Q That s not typically how the term "critical review"
9 is used; would you agree with that?
10 A Yeah, that s correct.
11 Q So when the publishers of Pandas indicate that you
12 were a critical reviewer of Pandas, that s somewhat
13 misleading, isn t it?
14 MR. MUISE: Objection. Assumes that he understands
15 what their purpose for listing him as a critical reviewer.
16 THE COURT: He just answered the question that
17 that s not a critical review, so the objection is overruled.
18 You can ask that question.
20 Q Advertising you as a critical reviewer of this book
21 is misleading to the students, isn t it?
22 MR. MUISE: Objection, that s argumentative.
23 THE COURT: It s cross examination. It s
24 appropriate cross. Overruled.
25 THE WITNESS: I m sorry, could you repeat the
1 question?
3 Q Telling the readers of Pandas that you were a
4 critical reviewer of that book is misleading, isn t it?
5 A I disagree. As I said, that s not the typical way
6 that the term "critical reviewer" is used, but nonetheless,
7 in my opinion I don t think it is misleading.
So Pandas has blatantly false information in it and yet it is not being 'misleading'? I guess Behes definition of 'misleading' must be similar to his definition of 'Peer review'. In other words, one that nobody else happens to share.