A Good Fisking

The New York Times has an op-ed by Micheal J Behe that is pro-intelligent-design. My recommendation is that at the end of each paragraph you raise one eyebrow and say in your best patronising voice "reeeaaally?".

I mean, the thing starts off:

In the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design.

Which is wrong on so many fronts: there's no rush, no merits and the debate is mostly scientists looking at ID and wondering where people get such damn stupid ideas.

Anyway in the interests of fairness the people over at The Panda's Thumb do take Behe seriously, in their way, and give it a thorough Fisk.

Really, though, when someone can come up with rubbish like:

The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.

Aren't you just ready to listen to what else he's got to say.

One thing that always gets me about ID is if there is a designer why was he so shitty. In which part of the design document was there that bit that says lets make it possible for humans to be addicted to all manner of stuff that's bad for them?

Did I mention I've been off the fags for a week?