I hadn't seen it. In fact, I hadn't read any ID arguments with any care. This is just horrible.
the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too.
And, you know, irrelevant. Because the case rests almost entirely on
...in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life.
Which is the laziest sort of god the gaps argument. Oy.
I was only 90% as shocked as I should have been when I saw that Bob posted. Thought maybe it was fatigue.
Stars are fusion machines. God must have created them. There is no other explanation! Booyakasha!
And god said let there be daft, and he created Michael Behe.
Got a light-skinned friend, looks like Michael Behe; got a dark-skinned friend, looks like Michael Behe.
That doesn't make any sense, but it's in my head now, so thanks, Bob.
I know, Ogged -- isn't it amazing? Behe doesn't even give some of the convincing-sounding arguments. You at least need to know something about evolutionary biology to knock holes in his idea of "irreducible complexity." But this business of "you know it looks designed, so why don't you just lie back and think of England" seems to me to be just a transparent appeal to laziness.