A reader sends in this link to a story about a forum at Lehigh University:

The chief proponent for intelligent design at Lehigh is Behe, who has drawn international acclaim and criticism for his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.”

In his book, Behe introduced the concept of the irreducibly complex biological system, which he explains as a “single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”

At Wednesday’s forum, Behe said of intelligent design: “I see it not as an argument for the existence of a creator, not as a search for the meaning of life, but as a humdrum [scientific] explanation for the complexity of life. Intelligent design is not a mystical decision; it is a concrete decision.”

Behe said that many scientists, including the renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, agree with the proposition that the appearance of design is “overwhelming” in biology. The difference between himself and his detractors, he said, “is that I do not see [Darwin’s theory of] natural selection as the explanation for design as Richard Dawkins does.”

Cassimeris: “Science is falsifiable”

Cassimeris, an expert in cell biology, countered Behe by saying that intelligent design “is not science. It invokes a supernatural, not a natural force. Intelligent design is not a science. It’s that simple—for me. As a scientist, I think we can explain things by natural law and the material world.

“Intelligent design does nothing for me as a scientist. It doesn’t provide me with any insight; it doesn’t tell me anything new about how cells work. It doesn’t give me a new approach to a problem.”

The reader adds:

I was at the panel discussion reported in the article. I should note that Lynne is very emotionally involved in her opposition to Mike. Amy: when you spoke in Philly you mentioned people who start phrases with "As a …" True to form, Lynne would start with "As a biologist and as a human being…" (the latter of which I thought was uncalled for). She didn’t have the eloquence of say, John Derbyshire on the topic, but she hit some points when she behaved like a scientist and stuck to the facts. Tammy was very "to the point" and shattered Mike in a few words.

But the folks from the Humanities really nailed the details down about what science is (hypotheses + data -> conclusions) and how ID cannot possibly be science as a result of the fact that it is not a *testable* hypothesis (oddly enough, like a lot of work in the really esoteric physics these days). Mike didn’t even try to argue the point. He quoted scientists who were Creationists, but didn’t acknowledge the fallacy that just because a scientist believes in Creationism dosn’t mean that Creationism is scientific. In some sense his argument paralleled that of vegetarians who say they’re not "anti-science" when they oppose animal research because Einstein was a vegetarian.

But he did bring up one good point – not in favor of ID so much as it was against the misuse of evolutionary theory: namely, that secularists use evolution to bash religion and shape worldview beyond evolutionary theory’s domain. He didn’t talk about the sexist and racist consequences of the late 19th and early 20th century, but he should have.