[PatrickHenry]

Er, if I may interject something. It seems to me that - sometimes - where scientists have bothered to read both sides of a scientific argument and form an independent view, they have been called "Intelligent Design" theorists - and thus end up being rejected out-of-hand by both sides. LOL!

I don't think ID guys like Behe borrow all that much from creationism. I'm not aware that he doubts old earth, or the value of radiometric dating, or the geologic column, or that he argues for the Flood, for example. He just doesn't see that evolution is the total answer. ID isn't a "middle of the road" position, so much as it tries to be an alternative to, or suppliment of evolution. Or so it seems to li'l ol' me.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Point taken. Thank you!!!

[DittoJed2]

I believe your assessment of Behe is correct. He sees nature as something more than random chance and postulates that it appears to have a design to it. I believe he probably leans towards theistic evolution. It doesn't mean he doesn't have something valuable to say if he isn't a YEC any more than it doesn't mean that biologists who are evolutionists can't say meaningful things either. I just wish the same professional courtesy were afforded to YEC scientists.