Michael Behe's editorial in today's New York Times uses rather unscientific methods to justify intelligent design:
The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.
While one could claim that Behe is simply using Occam's Razor
to show why intelligent design is reasonable, it is necessary to note that Behe never shows any proof for the veracity of intelligent design - other than the complexity of intelligent life and the internal structures found in cells. Behe finds the factory-like nature of our cells as evidence that complex life is a result of a design, rather than the "messy" process of evolution. I think the opposite is true - evolution caused the cells to be efficient (therefore having "the appearance of design"), while the "messy" cells died. As a result, we do not need intelligent design to explain the structured nature of cells, and can discard it.