[RussP]

The reviews of Behe's book that were posted on this thread were a joke. When someone claims with a straight face that Darwin had already considered and rejected Behe's analysis, something is obviously wrong. The reviewers clearly had their minds made up before they even started reading.

And you want to talk about lies? When a reviewer implies that ID theorists reject micro-evolution ("evolution" of a virus to another form of the virus), he is just rehashing a classic evolutionist lie about ID.

If nothing else, the sheer hostility of these "reviews" is a dead giveaway to the agenda of the reviewers. Why are they personally offended by the notion of intelligent design? Obviously because it threatens their worldview. So much for "disinterested" scholarship!

Clearly Behe would have an extremely difficult time getting a fair review of his book. It would be like Galileo trying to get a fair review from the church.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I see. So basically, what you're suggesting is that the reviews covered so far are flawed due to some sort of bias, as indicated by the fact that they were generally negative. Instead, we're supposed to imagine that, somewhere out there, there are anonymous reviewers, mysterious reviewers we have no evidence for, writing reviews that have not yet been actually presented to us here, but we should, for some reason, assume that these imaginary reviews are both meticulous and favorable to Behe. That about the size of it?

Hey, while we're engaging in this rich flight of fancy, allow me to add on - maybe these mysterious reviewers were, in fact, Santa Claus and the Loch Ness Monster. No doubt it just slipped Behe's mind when asked about the reviews of his work to mention the meticulous and positive reviews he's garnered. I can't imagine why - I'd sure remember if Santa and Nessie gave me some good dust-jacket quotes,

[js1138]

Clearly Behe would have an extremely difficult time getting a fair review of his book.

The reviewers were people Behe himself suggested.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Why are they personally offended by the notion of intelligent design? Obviously because it threatens their worldview.

That fairly well summarizes the motives of those who oppose the theory, or scientific model, of intelligent design. Because ID happens to agree with almost all world religions, it is neccessarily "unscientific." Such sloppy logic may characterize other aspects of the science of evolution, but it should not characterize public education in general.

But it isn't just a matter of personal offense. It is a matter of prohibiting the "offense" by law and establishing its opposite as the only worldview palatable for public education.