This is kind of crazy: Time needs a short essay on evolutionary biologist and atheism cheerleader Richard Dawkins for its annual 100 Most Influential People list. So who do they commission to write it? Michael Behe, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which advocates for "intelligent design." Behe, predictably, writes a piece that's critical of Dawkins and his ideas. When Time runs it, though, they add all kinds of language that makes Behe sound more respectful of Dawkins than he really is. The following seems to have been made up from whole cloth by an editor at Time:

It is a measure of the artful way Dawkins ... tells a tale and the rigor he brings to his thinking that even those of us who profoundly disagree with what he has to say can tip our hats to the way he has invigorated the larger debate.

Behe's original contains nothing about "the artful way Dawkins ... tells a tale," or "the rigor he brings to his thinking" (in fact, he accuses Dawkins of sloppy argument). It doesn't credit him with invigorating anything. Behe's only words of admiration are for Dawkins's "energy and determination."

This is unfair to Behe, obviously, but I don't give a fuck about Michael Behe, and if he ever gets sick, I hope he insists on limiting his treatment options to creationist medicine. The real problem is that the editorial process on display here -- Hey, here's thinking outside the box: what if we get one of those intelligent design guys to write about Dawkins? / I love it! / Say, did you see that Dawkins piece? Needs to be toned down a little ... -- trivializes and misrepresents the issue and goes out of its way to cast a creationist-in-disguise as a reasonable, respectful adversary with a plausible case.