Note also that philosopher Maarten Boudry and his colleagues have an attack on ID. This article is online and Nick Matzke says it’s “quite good.”
The Behe piece hasn’t yet appeared (I’ll let you know when it does), but Nick has this take on it:
If past experience is any guide, Behe’s article will make abstract arguments about the improbability of adaptations *if* many simultaneous events are required, but will present no evidence that many simultaneous events are likely to be necessary for the sorts of adaptations we actually see in biology. Positive evidence for ID will not be provided at all, but the article will be trumpeted as such by the usual ID propagandists. But the article isn’t out yet, so we’ll see, I suppose.
A confusing vagueness fills Behe’s argument, and the result throws his perfectly sensible arguments out of whack. I fail to see why kneejerk attacks on these arguments are taken so easily as good science.
Behe’s point should be obvious, whatever the details. For Darwinists to attack him on endless quibbles, with hypotheticals and Darwin dogma simply shows the damage done to the science public by Darwin propaganda.