At first I got a hit or two per week. Then, (interestingly-- following election day), the hits picked up. Nowadays I get maybe 5 or 6 per week; sometimes several per day.

Throughout, these have come as two types. One: more or less straight news stories commenting on events (school board hearings, debates or lectures) featuring Intelligent Design. These might include a quote from Behe and/or other advocates, followed always by counterpoints from their critics for "balance".

The other type takes the form of Op/Ed pieces or Letters to the Editor, nearly always in the negative, coming from opponents of ID and Behe. (Google does not sample conservative or Christian sites for their news alerts or there of course would be many more hits generally and many in support of the theory.)

Invariably, the opposing view describes Behe's notions of "irreducible complexity" as does Fred Barnes here, in his Chicago Tribune column syndicated across the country the past week or so:

"ID movement icons such as biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University argue the Earth must have been created through guided, intelligent events, because everything in the universe is just too complicated to have been created through random chance."

(Note the implication that Behe and ID proponents generally lack the imagination and broadmindedness necessary to get past such simplistic ideas.)

But this is in no way a synopsis of irreducible complexity as described in Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box". To the contrary, the concept is laid out there by Darwin himself as quoted in his "Origin of the Species." (p.154 of the 6th ed. (1988); New York University Press, NYC):

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

It is Behe's contention that if Darwin had had access to the scientific instruments available today, especially the electron microscope, he would know that such complex organs do exist. Behe goes on to describe many such organs and processes and also the prosaic but useful mouse trap analogy.

Every time ID opponents declare that irreducible complexity is merely an assertion that the world is too complicated to have come about by means of Darwinian evolution they show themselves to be ignorant of the material and addressing instead a stereotype. So their arguments amount to no more than rehashing old quotes from their compatriots proving only that none have read the book.

As more and more people become aware of the issues and more actually read "Darwin's Black Box," they will see that there is in fact no debate because there is no responsible opposition to Intelligent Design. Rather, more like a frat boy rap session in which everybody competes to see who can come up with the coolest put-down.

The issues involved are too important for such irresponsibility on the part of the physical science establishment and its followers. Somebody should read the book.

Just wondering.

OK, let's not limit it to opponents of ID...has ANYONE read "Darwin's Black Box"? Anyone at all??

How about Behe's Mom, anybody know her? Ms Behe, have you read your son's book?

There is more to ID than Behe, and more to Behe's writings than simply his book. I've read a number of his articles and op-eds as well as Dembski's stuff. The amazing thing is that after all these years of positing things like irreducible complexity there has yet to be a single experiment built around the concept.

As to people dismissing them as creationist claptrap, their own words do that for them. You have been following the Kansas trials, haven't you?

Sorry if you misunderstood me. Have you read the bible of ID, ie Darwin's Black Box?

My issue is that opponents of ID keep rehashing the arguement Behe addresses there, point by point as if none have actually read his book, checked his documentation or followed his sources.

It still has not been a debate...he and ID are merely dismissed out of hand as Creationist claptrap.

So, what's your challenge? ID isn't a science. It isn't even close.

I would love to come across one opponent of Intelligent Design who has actually read the bible thereof.

Anybody?

Agreed.
However, form my viewpoint, the more we investigate all of this and thereby, the more we find that there is no contrdiction to ID, the more open people will be to it.

This is not a loss for evolution, but rather a gain for ID. The two are not mutially exclusive.