Behe’s little column

Intelligent Design creationist Michael Behe has an op-ed in today’s New York Times arguing in favor of ID; The Panda’s Thumb has a couple postings ripping it apart, and the religious blogs have some hailing it. I don’t have time for comment on this today, but it’s worth wading into for anyone with a few hours to spare.

It should be noted that ID isn’t only bad science, rejected by virtually all of the world’s biologists, it’s also bad religion that’s rejected by all the world’s honest religious people; see The Revealer for another cogent critique of Behe’s column:

Michael J. Behe, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, pleads the case of Intelligent Design in The New York Times, explaining I.D.’s “four linked claims,” and disingenuously describing the first two controversial assumptions as “uncontroversial.” It’s an exercise in anachronism, pointing mechanical metaphors backwards towards biology to prove that “life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.”

BTW, I had the opportunity to argue ID with a fellow who works at the Discovery Institute during a recent foray to Seattle, and I have to say I wasn’t impressed by his honesty. But more on that later as well.