A great book indeed which addresses many of the fallacies.
I like the paragraph:
"Methodological naturalism proves at last nothing more than an artificial
restriction on thought, and it will eventually pass. Despite would-be
gatekeepers like Pennock, the argument for design is gaining strength with
the advance of science and for a simple reason once described by the
physicist Percy Bridgman: `The scientific method, as far as it is a method,
is nothing more than doing one's damnedest with one's mind, no holds
barred.'"
Of course the scientific method does not prohibit what is looked at but the idea that ID is gaining strength appears to be more based on the Wedge timeline requirements than on reality. ID is gaining some strength in religious circles but has a long way to go in scientific circles. Not too surprisingly since it does not add much to science other than a veiled attempt to introduce religion into science.
Behe's "comments" focus on a small part of Pennock's book, try to imply wrong doing on the part of Pennock where there isn't. Behe has avoided dealing with most of the book and focused on a minor part.
Examples:
"But Pennock is being disingenuous. "
"Unfortunately, whatever merits exist in Pennock's analysis, they are obscured by based rhetoric."
"Pennock, however, is preternaturally uninterested in scientific objections to evolutions. "
The part that I "liked" was this part where Behe abuses the duality of evolution vs ID.
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:
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.