Gulp!

Brilliant! Read it. Here's a quote:

"As some readers of the Times may notice, this mole article appears in the science section a day after an op-ed column appeared in the editorial section promoting Intelligent Design. Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biologist, claims that evolutionary biologists have not offered hypotheses for how complex things evolve in nature. Given this supposed lack of explanations, and given the supposedly obvious signs of design in biology, Behe concludes that life must be the product of an Intelligent Designer.
Behe is incorrect. In fact, evolutionary biologists have put together hypotheses for many complex systems, which they have published in leading peer-reviewed biology journals."

There's a jab: p-e-e-r r-e-v-i-e-w-e-d j-o-u-r-n-a-l-s! And it doesn't stop there:

"These are some of the reasons why Catania and other scientists that I interview are not swayed by the sorts of claims made by Answers in Genesis or Michael Behe (as evidenced by the lack of peer-reviewed papers that they have inspired). Instead, what excites these scientists are the common themes that arise when they study the origins of different complex traits."

get it: peer-reviewed journals. Ahh, but that's why some on the christian right are complaining about scientists' group mentality and use this to attack peer-reviewed articles describing everything from evolution to global warming. Now that they're sufficiently far along in the US, they're starting to work on Canada's collective sould, and eventually they will demand that we all be happy in our knowledge that it's safe to walk the streets of Liibby. The last link is via Neiwert.