And make it a news story and have it published in NEWSWEEK?

In the big picture, of course, what’s really significant is that they asked Mike Behe to write the thing at all…That such a sturdy organ of materialism as Time would subtly misrepresent him is perhaps not nearly as significant. (Post-Darwinist)

is their a contradiction here?

There is. It has been pointed out by David Stove in his numerous essays on Dawkins. Stove calls it the “with one bound Jack was free! stuff”. You know, like in those children’s adventure stories. The hero, Jack, is hopelessly hog-tied, gagged, and duct-taped to the furniture. So hopeless is Jack’s predicament, that not even the author can think of a believable way out. So the author begins the next paragraph with “With one bound, Jack was free!”.

Thank you. I wasn’t aware of what Behe comments were on the re-write. It is standard to ask for more than you expect to use but the additions he didn’t include are uncalled for.

Behe says:

TIME Magazine asked me to write an entry on Richard Dawkins for “The TIME 100″ this year. After their editing, it came out rather more insipid than I wrote it. They asked for 400-500 words, but pared it down to 187 — and that’s after adding their own phrases (e.g., “deeply unsettling to proponents of intelligent design,” “the rigor he brings to his thinking,” “the Bible advises us,” etc.)! (at EvolutionNews)

The added phrases, IMO, represent what Time expected to get from Behe but didn’t. After all, Behe is a Catholic and an ID proponent, surely Time expected something that sounded a little more religious and creationist.

As clever as they think they are, I can only guess Time wanted to present something as poetically ironic as a religious zealot reacting to Dawkins. Having not received what they were looking for, they found nothing ethically challenging about pushing Behe’s comments in a more religious direction.

I don’t see a recognition of ID so much as I see a continued effort by media to push ID as religious anti-science.

Before we go poo-pooing this too much, let’s not ignore the significance of Mike Behe being invited to comment on Dawkins in this context. This fact alone suggests that ID in general and Mike in particular is having a pretty big impact. If Time really wanted to totally cop out, they could have just asked a Darwinist crony like Daniel Dennet or Eugenie Scott to sing Dawkins’ praises but they asked Mike Behe. The editorial hatchet job notwithstanding, this is an exciting development that we should be celebrating!

The Scubaredneck

Great points. I wish the blind goddelusionist and his adoring disciples could see just how bad his logic really is.

“It’s either blind OR programmed. It cannot be blind AND programmed at the same time.” Dawkins et al. think that they themselves are programmed and that free will is an illusion. Yet they still want us to freely choose their view! Their postulations imply that no one can change their own mind. IOW, they are walking self-contradictions. The lights are on the music is blaring but nobody’s home.

Darwinists and especially the atheist types are dead from the neck up. Every time I find that actually thinks, they become a theist in short time once you spread out the facts before them in a clear way.
————————–
jerry: cutting is one thing – changing and adding to the words to the point where the author is made to say what he didn’t is fraud => TIME is a fraud.

BEHE commented thus,

After their editing, it came out rather more insipid than I wrote it. They asked for 400-500 words, but pared it down to 187 — and that’s after adding their own phrases (e.g., “deeply unsettling to proponents of intelligent design,” “the rigor he brings to his thinking,” “the Bible advises us,” etc.)!

See HERE

Do the math. TIME is a fraud. They must be the same nerds that run wikipedia’s science sections – another big time fraud.

But that’s just me.