Sam,

Not sure if you’ve ever thought about cause and effect, but when you say something like the sky is blue because the sky is blue, you’re not really explaining anything.

>>>"He simply says design is evident."

Congratulations. You have put Behe’s conclusion into your own words. Nobody aware of Behe's book could sensibly argue that he doesn't claim "design is evident."

But when I said that I thought Behe suggests if we can't currently explain it with science, then we must accept the religious explanation, I was describing how Behe arrived at his conclusion that "design is evident." Your response was to remind us that Behe says "design is evident."

Think, McFly, think!

Aside from its function of further clarifying for the rest of us just how simplistically you contemplate these kinds of issues, your response to this assessment of mine was a waste of time and space. Next time around, please tell us how Behe approached formulating his conclusion.

>>>"By the way he is a thestic evolutionist, not a creationist." (sic)

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/19061.shtml?base=120

Behe supports the notion that the universe was created. Hence, he is a creationist, if not a Creationist. And why are you so averse to his beliefs being labeled with a capital "C"?

-LH