Title: Anti-science
Product review: The reviewer of 15 sept. misrepresents the main tenet of "intelligent design". Behe admits in his "response to critics" of july 31, 2000 (on discovery.org), using his example of the bacterial flagellum, that "intelligent design" means that "the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or ANY OTHER unintelligent process". In the same response, he then says "I acknowledge that I cannot rule out the possibility future work might explain irreducibly complex biochemical systems without the need to invoke intelligent design": Prof. Behe is already crawling back. Much ado about nothing, in other words.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
