For other's here, viewing pleasure, I'll borrow a small snippet from his blog entry, if I may...
It shows cases some of the circular logic so often employed by the fervently faithful [of Darwinian processes explaining EVERYTHING].
Behe;
"The same question-begging is used to “answer” my argument on protein binding sites, but with a special twist. Writes Coyne: “In fact, interactions between proteins, like any complex interaction, were certainly built up step by mutational step ... This process could have begun with weak proteinprotein associations that were beneficial to the organism. These were then strengthened gradually...” So, reasons Coyne, we know protein binding sites developed gradually by random mutation because we know proteins have binding sites. So there!"
Behe also mentions that much of the criticism is ad hominem, appeals to authority, and the like, along with circular arguments, etc.
Further up in Behe's response is this;
"I knew of course that Coyne strongly dislikes intelligent design, but was hopeful as I first started his review that he would engage the book’s arguments and offer thoughtful counterpoints, which could help sharpen my own thinking."
Ah, yes...
The wonderful world of Crevo wars. They are not restricted to being only here at FR.
More widely than just *here* hardly anyone wants to talk about, or narrowly discuss "the article".
Behe, to his credit, does a fine job of investigating and discussing some of the various 'articles' which have long composed "Darwinian" assumptions. That's how science can indeed work, isn't it? [Is supposed to work? That we are repeatedly told, is the way that it works???]
...font color and emphasis changes in the above post, strictly my own, not Behe’s...
What appeals to authority? Didn't you know that all credible scientists believe the theory of evolution and the debate is over. </willful blindness>