It must be hard to be the Darwinist editor of a major science journal, to have to constantly maintain the party line that there is no scientific debate between intelligent design and evolution while publishing articles whose authors seem haunted by design arguments, often taking it upon themselves to stick up a straw man of ID to knock down with a puff of hot air.
It must be especially hard when a scientist like Michael Behe bothers you, thinking it his duty to advance the debate by correcting the Darwinists’ mistaken views of irreducible complexity which you published, hoping that maybe he would go away.
Alas, for the editors of Science and Trends in Microbiology, Michael Behe has not gone away. In fact, he’s publishing the letters himself at his Amazon blog, which you can read here and here. Because knowledge advances when arguments are best understood, not when they’re ignored or (purposefully?) mistaken, those who follow the debate would do best to read what Behe has to say for himself:

Although some news reporters, lawyers, and parents are confused on the topic, “intelligent design” is not the opposite of “evolution.” As some biologists before Darwin theorized, organisms might have descended with modification and be related by common descent, but the process might have been guided by some form of intelligence or teleological driving force in nature. Darwin’s chief contribution was not the simple idea of common descent, but the hypothesis that evolution is driven completely by ateleological mechanisms, prominently including random variation and natural selection. Intelligent design has no proper argument with the bare idea of common descent; rather, it disputes the sufficiency of ateleological mechanisms to explain all facets of biology. Those who fail to grasp such distinctions are like people who can’t distinguish between the ideas of Darwin and, say, Lamarck.

Read the rest here.