Remember, genes are NOT blueprints. This means you can't, for example, insert "the genes for an elephant's trunk" into a giraffe and get a giraffe with a trunk. There are no genes for trunks. What you CAN do with genes is chemistry, since DNA codes for chemicals. For instance, we can in theory splice the native plants' talent for nitrogen fixation into a terran plant. Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Nonlinear Genetics"

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

"How little can a government govern and still carry out its basic function – protecting its citizens from injustice and serving as a referee of last resort?” I don't agree those are a government's functions. A government should ensure that it does not commit injustice while carrying out its functions. Even when people have a reasonable understanding of 'justice', it's not desirable to achieve it through governmental ends. The risk is simply too great.

My blue eyes were 100% determined by my genes,

Were they, really? My understanding is that we can't yet determine whether a given person will have blue eyes even if we know which alleles of the relevant genes they've inherited.

Perhaps this brings us one step closer to a neurological interface... though I wouldn't hold my breath. It might be easier to engineer artificial processing nodes than to connect computer circuits to living organisms' brains.

I wonder: to what degree can an act of suicide be a means of creating solidarity with a social group? It's an odd way to assert belonging with others, but I guess some people really would jump off a bridge if enough others were doing it.

I never found the 'copycat as learning' idea to be especially useful. Most people just aren't very creative - when push comes to shove, their thoughts flow in the same ruts as everyone else's. Copycat events thus take place because the recent memory to the associations left in the public's mind make the action more conceivable.

Which societies are you thinking of?

The very first one I thought of was Iran. But there are parts of America that would qualify just as well. Think of the degree to which female fetuses were aborted in certain parts of the world, because male children were more valued, once they received the technology of amniocentesis. If 'gay infants' could be identified in vivo, or even male fetuses predisposed to be somewhat more feminine than whatever the societal preference was...

I worry about what will happen if/when societies incapable of performing the research themselves are given information capable of identifying homosexual-tending gene patterns. The implications are disturbing. Especially if homosexuals (particularly gay men) are just extreme cases of generally diminishing sexual dimorphism in humans.

but that doesn’t justify accusing people of crimes they do not commit.

I didn't accuse Iranians of selectively aborting female fetuses. I do suspect that if homosexual fetuses could be conclusively identified, Iranian society would be one of the first to implement their destruction.

I'm inclined towards the position that life has already slowly colonized the galaxy - in the form of mineral-consuming bacteria. 'Intelligent' life is probably not sufficiently survival-oriented to spread anywhere, or even persist for any length of time.

Fermi asked “where are they?” and this can only apply to intelligent aliens within our LIGHT CONE.

Actually, it applies to alien life of almost any kind. Intelligence isn't required. We've never encountered space-going life of any kind, even extraterrestrial bacterial spores. And that's somewhat surprising.

doesn't mean that there isn't some real trouble with mental health. Are you kidding? Even the concept of 'mental health' is dubious. 
 
If we had any real expectation that mental illnesses were identifiable conditions, they'd be considered part of neurology - like epilepsy.

since in no nation have i seen data which suggests religious people have lower fertilities than non-religious i'm not too interested in referring to it as a disease. I take it you don't refer to the common cold or chickenpox as diseases either?

All right, as a purported cure psychiatry is often mumbo-jumbo, as for diagnostics of maladaptive behavior not so much. Um... no. We can't even determine whether 'schizophrenia' is a single disorder or a collection of unrelated conditions which have vaguely similar manifestations. 
 
As for the ability to diagnose, the formal diagnostic criteria for mental illnesses aren't rigorously applied in practice for a variety of reasons. 
 
Considered as a whole, modern psychiatry is a religious practice, not a science or even a proper medicine.

"Those improbable steps that the evil IDers (and Godel) talk about might really be there." But Godel spoke of the odds of a human form arising directly from disassociated bits by chance. That's not what evolutionary theory addresses. 
 
Even if very extraordinary things did have to happen for us to get here, it takes more than that to prove intelligent intervention.

Indeed, but those parts substitute a subset of the Universe. Irrelevant. The Theorems apply to any system that permits "formal structure". If part of the universe can be described formally, the Theorems apply to it as a whole. But this is increasingly tangential. 
 
razib, your quest is futile. It is entirely possible that Behe recognizes perfectly well that his arguments have been refuted and continues them anyway to further his goals. Even if we presume that his arguments are being made in good faith, the search space of possible reasons is too large. Rationality is specific and limited, a very tiny slice of the cosmos; irrationality is barely constrained at all, representing everything incompatible with a very restrictive set of principles. It's extremely clear that Behe's arguments are incompatible with rationality - it follows that, if they're made honestly, his reasons for holding them are irrational. And there are so many possible irrational reasons for him to hold his position that it would take extensive experimentation to identify what path through the possibility space he's actually taken. 
"Isn't sanity really a one-trick pony, anyway? All you get is one trick: rational thinking. But when you're good and crazy, the sky's the limit!" -- The Tick

Sorry, Kitcher: Godel proved nothing of the kind, since it is far from clear that the Universe is a formal system Um... no. Some aspects of the universe can be accurately described by a formal system sufficiently powerful to encompass arithmetic. Thus, Godel's Theorems apply to it. 
 
The important point is to recognize that Godel's Theorems do NOT demonstrate that there is anything special or unusual about human cognition, nor do they show that ID is necessary or even plausible, or evolution impossible.

There have to be presuppositions which allow for his arguments to seem rock-solid and irrefutable in his own cognitive universe. Why can't it be as simple as Behe not believing that he's capable of overlooking elementary errors in reasoning made on a particular topic? 
 
I know plenty of smart people who internalized the property of "being smart" enough that they can't acknowledge when they've been dumb. Their intelligence is a given - thus, any conclusion which contradicts their assessment of their intelligence must be wrong. So they do dumb things and don't correct them.

but behe has been directly rebutted for 15 years, so that is why i'm asking for some deeper axiom or assumption which serves to anchor is views. Basic human psychology: we start with the conclusion we want to reach, and seek out arguments that lead to it. When we've established a path between the conclusion and things we're willing to accept as premises, we stop - and don't explore what else is implied by those premises, including contradictions. 
 
There's no screw loose. This is how humans naturally function.

Stock car racing is extremely grueling, requiring advanced reflexes far above human norms, and tends to be conducted by families despite what is presumably a large number of people who would like to participate if they could compete. 
 
Why doesn't anyone look for genetic influences there? Is it too obvious that there are inherited characteristics that are relevant? Or is the sport not classy enough?