PZ Myer at Pharyngula discusses an interview with Behe:
The Guardian has published a pathetic interview with Behe. The interviewer, John Sutherland, is clearly out of his depth and allows real howlers to slide by, and in a few cases, even helps Behe along.
But the question is: exactly how did life get here? Was it by natural selection and random mutation or was it by something else? Everybody - even Richard Dawkins - sees design in biology. You see this design when you see co-ordinated parts coming together to perform a function - like in a hand. And so it’s the appearance of design that everybody’s trying to explain. So that if Darwin’s theory doesn’t explain it we’re left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed. That’s essentially the design argument.
Or read on for some of my comments
I find it refreshening that the design argument is presented so clear as an appeal to ignorance but worse, that the only alternative seems to be Darwinian theory. In other words, intelligent design is merely a placeholder for other evolutionary processes and it is not really clear if there is a need for an intelligent designer.
Too bad Behe still follows the DI playbook about not identifying the designer…
Funny how Behe considers it flattery when science has so clearly rejected his arguments. ID proponents seem to be starved for attention. And perhaps any attention is good attention because it is not really about science after all…
Baseyian Bouffant points out that Wikipedia contains a relevant entry
You commit this fallacy if you compare yourself to Galileo Galilei or another scientist suppressed by authorities or disbelieved by your peers. This is very popular among pseudoscientists.
A popular answer is, “they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Columbus, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown”. Indeed, being “suppressed” is not correlated to being right.