"Intelligent" design, Part II

Check out this article about the duh-Dover kerfuffle. My favorite part:

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.

The NAS, by the way, is the National Academy of Sciences. Therefore, Behe is saying that the NAS, and all its thousands of members, are wrong, and he's right. Well, if we'd known that we could have saved ourselves a bunch of time and effort. From now on, I think perhaps school boards should simply decide to teach whatever Michael Behe, and not the National Academy of Sciences, says is right.

Thanks to Sarcasmo for the link. She knows how to make my day.