Dept. of beating dead horses

Sorry for yet another post on "intelligent design," but this New York Times story is too good to pass up. In the story, we learn that:

[Michael Behe, a] leading architect of the intelligent-design movement
defended his ideas in a federal courtroom on Tuesday and acknowledged that under
his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would fit as neatly as
intelligent design.

And:

Professor Behe said that although he had reviewed the [intelligent
design] textbook [Of Pandas and People], he had reviewed only the
section he himself had written, on blood clotting. Pressed further, he agreed
that it was "not typical" for critical reviewers of scientific textbooks to
review their own work.

And:

Mr. Behe said: "It does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step
description of how these structures arose." He added that "the word 'mechanism'
can be used broadly" and said the mechanism was "intelligent activity."

This is already almost too silly to believe. But they save the best for last:

Listening from the front row of the courtroom, a school board members said he
found Professor Behe's testimony reaffirming. "Doesn't it sound like he knows
what he's talking about?" said the Rev. Ed Rowand, a board member and church
pastor.

Sometimes I just have nothing to add.