Literature

Flagged up as an "Opinion" paper, the contribution of Forrest and Gross to Trends in Biochemical Sciences cannot be accused of sailing under false colours. Here is opinion in abundance. There is opinion about Michael Behe (notably, his "evasion of the evidential responsibilities of his profession"), William Dembski ("No Free Lunch was, and is, a failed argument"), the ID Movement (characterised by "scientific sterility" and "propelled by powerful cultural and political currents"). There is also opinion about Behe's critics (identified as "competent hands" that have provided "solid refutations"), the Kitzmiller trial (with ID's "deserved legal defeat") and the 'Teach the Controversy' campaign (a "clever marketing ploy").
Academic content of this paper is provided by citing recent objections that have been made to Behe's irreducible complexity arguments. As might be expected from this "Opinion" paper, these arguments are presented as knockdown and final - as though nothing more needs be said! It might be worth reminding ourselves that this just repeats the story of the past 10 years.
I will pick up just one point made in the following quotation. "The ID movement's antipathy to the Enlightenment is understandable: critical inquiry, the central legacy of the Enlightenment, threatens the pre-modern intellectual and religious authoritarianism that the creationists would reinstate." Let it be said that critical enquiry is not the exclusive legacy of the Enlightenment. That emphasis comes from the founders of science in the 17th Century and it is highly prized by ID advocates. This emphasis is much needed today, because Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis appear to be protected from critical scrutiny in schools and colleges. The distinctive legacy of the Enlightenment is rationalism. It is the elevation of reason to create a secular authoritarianism that has managed to establish a stranglehold on the academic community so that any dissenters are deemed to be betrayers of the cause. This paper, sad to say, epitomises the hegemony of the Enlightenment as the authors try to portray dissent from their rationalist ideology as an attack on science.

Biochemistry by design
Barbara C. Forrest and Paul R. Gross
Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Volume 32, Issue 7, July 2007, Pages 301-310

Abstract: Creationists are attempting to use biochemistry to win acceptance for their doctrine in the public mind and especially in state-funded schools. Biochemist Michael Behe is a major figure in this effort. His contention that certain cellular structures and biochemical processes - bacterial flagella, the blood-clotting cascade and the vertebrate immune system - cannot be the products of evolution has generated vigorous opposition from fellow scientists, many of whom have refuted Behe's claims. Yet, despite these refutations and a decisive defeat in a US federal court case, Behe and his associates at the Discovery Institute continue to cultivate American supporters. They are also stepping up their efforts abroad and, worryingly, have achieved some success. Should biochemists (and other scientists) be concerned? We think they should be.