Both Eva and Jason have scooped me, but it's never too late to gloat. Behe's feeble sortie into the obliging arms of the NY Times (which I criticized before) gets its fundamental dishonesty highlighted today.

Behe had written,

In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines" and "Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things." Referring to his student days in the 1960's, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered." In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.

Doesn't that sound to you like he's suggesting that Alberts' ideas favor Intelligent Design? And that citing the president of the NAS was a way to borrow a little credibility for his claims? Alas, poor Behe, but sometimes quote mining can turn around and bite you on the butt.

You guessed it, Bruce Alberts responded. He disagrees with Behe. No, "disagree" is too mild a term: he stands in opposition, 180° away from Behe, and forcefully contradicts him.

In "Design for Living" (Op-Ed, Feb. 7), Michael J. Behe quoted me, recalling how I discovered that "the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered" some 40 years ago. Dr. Behe then paraphrases my 1998 remarks that "the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."

That I was unaware of the complexity of living things as a student should not be surprising. In fact, the majestic chemistry of life should be astounding to everyone. But these facts should not be misrepresented as support for the idea that life's molecular complexity is a result of "intelligent design." To the contrary, modern scientific views of the molecular organization of life are entirely consistent with spontaneous variation and natural selection driving a powerful evolutionary process.

In evolution, as in all areas of science, our knowledge is incomplete. But the entire success of the scientific enterprise has depended on an insistence that these gaps be filled by natural explanations, logically derived from confirmable evidence. Because "intelligent design" theories are based on supernatural explanations, they can have nothing to do with science.

Ow, that has gotta sting.

That should be a lesson to the Intelligent Design creationists: don't try to take scientist's words and pretend that they intended to support your unfounded, unscientific claims.