'Intelligent Design' Not Scientific

If Shawn Pendley ["Postmarks," Aug. 8] really believes that "Intelligent Design" qualifies as scientific theory, then I.D. has done its job: to masquerade old-fashioned anti-scientific mumbo jumbo in a costume of postmodern jargon that makes it attractive to people with no scientific training and an axe to grind.
    Like "Scientific Creationism" before it, "Intelligent Design" makes no scientific predictions and is not falsifiable. It is yet another expression of the "God of the Gaps" deceit, only this time wrapped up in mathematical fallacies that grossly misrepresent the science of probability and continue to put God into a smaller and smaller box.
    It saddens me that otherwise intelligent people fall for the garbage that Behe and company continue to spew. Creationists used to claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics made evolution impossible, even though it does nothing of the kind; this current spew about "mathematically irreducible complexity" is the same sort of lies in a new coat of paint.