*Now this is cross-examination*

Very impressive. The trap was sprung out of nowhere! The following is an exchange between Mr. Rothschild, lawyer for the plaintiff's in the Dover ID case and Professor Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and possibly now former poster child for the ID movement since his credibility been shreded over the course of the cross examination.

But anyway...

Q. But they (certain biochemist who were sent Prof Behe's book for review) were reluctant or disagreed about
intelligent design, correct?
A. Several were, yes, uh-huh.

Q. You also explained that, why you don't expect
intelligent design at scientific conferences, correct?
A. Yes, that's because I consider it to be a poor
forum for communicating such ideas.

Because no scientist considers it to be valuable? I mean even if it were science, then what? It's a sterile theory. It proposes no experimentation nor mechanism by which this Intelligent Designer is suppose to have brought forth this irreducibly complex 'thing'. Once you accept his premise then what's the point of further research? we don't know how it occured so the ID did it.

Q. That's because typically you would present in the
sort of poster sessions?
A. That's correct, yes.

Q. That doesn't really provide the opportunity to
discuss it in detail to the audience?
A. That's correct, yes.

Q. It's difficult to impart understanding to your
fellow scientists in that abbreviated form?
A. Yes. And not many come by. A few people wander
by, yes.

Q. It's not really an amenable way to present it?
A. That's right. It's usually brief conversations.

Q. You need to really present it in more detail for
scientists to understand it?
A. That's why I discuss it in seminars and so on
before scientific audiences, yes.

(AND BLAM! The trap is sprung!)
Q. Fair to say that, that rule probably makes even
more sense with high school students, Professor Behe?
A. I'm sorry, what rule is that?

Q. The rule that you can't just present intelligent
design in an abbreviated fashion?
A. Well, you certainly will not get a full
understanding of intelligent design in a brief session.
However, I think, if we're talking about high school
students, such as you mentioned, it certainly might be a
good thing to mention topics to them that they might
consider pursuing in-depth outside the classroom.

Q. But an abbreviated statement is not going to give
them a good understanding anymore than it would your
fellow scientists, is that right?
A. A brief statement of any complex subject
certainly will not give a person a complete
understanding of it.

Read the rest of it here. He sorts of appears to conceed the point before springing another trap where he shows that ID isn't really interesting in pointing out its OWN gaps and this would mislead student.

But anyway there we have it, ID is nothing more than a process on which to throw doubt at Evolution when itself isn't scientific in any sense of the word. And oh by the way, Prof. Behe has redefined a scientific theory to essentially mean nothing but a hypothesis and he aslo agrees that astrology counts as a 'theory' under his definition.

Peace.