Behe in the 'New York Times'

Leading ID theorist Michael Behe has an article in the New York Times (reprinted by the Discovery Institute) that's well worth reading, especially in light of recent spoutings by John Derbyshire. I haven't read his new, longer NR piece, but from Corner postings I've seen in reference to it, it's more of the same about ID not being truly scientific, etc. I'm really not sure where he's getting this stuff -- or the attitude that goes with it.

One of these days, though science is not my favorite writing topic, I'm going to have to do a piece on the bewilderment of a Christian who's just trying to figure out some sort of coherent theory of origins. I mean, you're raised unquestioningly in a seven-day-creation-believing church (which has proven quite sensible and knowledgable in other areas), then you fall in among the ID theorists -- some of whom, though not all, have an attitude of their own (i.e., "You know nothing of all this? Where have you been all your life?") -- and meanwhile, the culture, including many Christians, are telling you that evolution makes perfect sense and God makes perfect sense and it's perfect lunacy to try to connect the one with the other. Unless I'm perfectly dense and getting everyone's beliefs mixed up, which may well be the case. And whether the people you talk to know a lot or only a little about the subject, many of them seem to have this strange impatience with everyone who (a) knows little of the subject and/or (b) doesn't see it exactly the way they do.

A strange state of affairs, any way you look at it.