ID is a "rival theory" (?)

The NYTimes ran an op-ed by Prof. Michael Behe of Lehigh University, today. He is one of the top mainstream scientists that accept intelligent design. I don't really have anything creative to say on this that I haven't already, so I'm going to cut and paste from Pharyngula, a blog by a University of Minnesota-Morris biology professor:

From the very first sentence, Michael Behe’s op-ed in today’s NY Times is an exercise in unwarranted hubris.

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.

And it’s all downhill from there.

Intelligent Design creationism is not a “rival theory.” It is an ad hoc pile of mush, and once again we catch a creationist using the term “theory” as if it means “wild-ass guess.” I think a theory is an idea that integrates and explains a large body of observation, and is well supported by the evidence, not a random idea about untestable mechanisms which have not been seen. I suspect Behe knows this, too, and what he is doing is a conscious bait-and-switch. See here, where he asserts that there is evidence for ID:

Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims.

This is where he first pulls the rug over the reader’s eyes. He claims the Intelligent Design guess is based on physical evidence, and that he has four lines of argument; you’d expect him to then succinctly list the evidence, as was done in the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ on the talkorigins site. He doesn’t. Not once in the entire op-ed does he give a single piece of this “physical evidence.” Instead, we get four bald assertions, every one false.

The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature.

He then tells us that Mt Rushmore is designed, and the Rocky Mountains aren’t. How is this an argument for anything? Nobody is denying that human beings design things, and that Mt Rushmore was carved with intelligent planning. Saying that Rushmore was designed does not help us resolve whether the frond of a fern is designed....

Behe began this op-ed by telling us that he was going to give us the contemporary argument for Intelligent Design creationism, consisting of four linked claims. Here’s a shorter Behe for you:

The evidence for Intelligent Design.

1. It’s obvious.
2. It’s obvious!
3. Evolutionary explanations are no good.
4. There aren’t any good evolutionary explanations.

That’s it.

That’s pathetic.

Back to me: Religion has often been used to substitute when the bounds of scientific explanation are reached. To simply say, "Intelligent Design must be true because science cannot explain" is to chicken out and be impatient. Whatever holes exist in evolutionary theory are more likely explained by scientific theories not yet understood than by intelligent design. Scientific knowledge has not reached its full potential. There will always be room for religion because there are always unanswered questions. To simply say that religion is needed here, is to give up on the scientific pursuit for a theory with no physical evidence.

___________________
Post-script: Letters to the editor about the original Behe article.