Tower of Babel puts two philosophical objections to intelligent design theory. First, Pennock faults it for using negative argumentation and false dichotomies: To argue that Darwinism is wrong is not to prove that Genesis literalism is right. Perhaps some evolutionary mechanism other than natural selection is at work, or perhaps some other creation story, like that of an American Indian tribe, is true instead of Genesis.
Pennock admits that Phillip Johnson, for example, does not defend biblical literalism, but he says that Johnson commits the fallacy anyway, because as a Christian he speaks of an active God who can intervene in nature. This, Pennock sniffs, neglects such possibilities as deism, an impersonal God, and a "universal life force." :
Philosophers call this logic chopping. Johnson was writing not for philosophers but for the general public. Suppose he had spelled out the argument this way:
SJ: Indeed, as Mike Behe points out, the very lack of evidence for Darwinism
is evidence for Intelligent Design:
"Darwinism is the most plausible unintelligent mechanism, yet it has
tremendous difficulties and the evidence garnered so far points to its
inability to do what its advocates claim for it. If unintelligent mechanisms
can't do the job, then that shifts the focus to intelligent agency. That's as far
as the argument against Darwinism takes us, but most people already have
other reasons for believing in a personal God who just might act in history,
and they will find the argument for intelligent design fits with what they
already hold. With the argument arranged this way, evidence against
Darwinism does count as evidence for an active God, just as valid negative
advertising against the Democratic candidate will help the Republican, even
though Vegetarian and One-World candidates are on the ballot, too. Life is
either the result of exclusively unintelligent causes or it is not, and the
evidence against the unintelligent production of life is clearly evidence for
intelligent design." (Behe M.J., "The God of Science: The Case for
Intelligent Design," review of "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the
New Creationism" by Robert Pennock, MIT Press, 1999.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_godofscience.htm)
Was Behe attacking a strawman here? "With the argument arranged this way..."