I’m curious if you read the article Bill. The endorsement from Orr is drawn from this passage in the article:
Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University (and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute), is a biochemist who writes technical papers on the structure of DNA. He is the most prominent of the small circle of scientists working on intelligent design, and his arguments are by far the best known.
Sounds like a glowing endorsement, doesn’t it?
But he goes on to say:
But Behe’s principal argument soon ran into trouble.
Behe and his followers now emphasize that, while irreducibly complex systems can in principle evolve, biologists can’t reconstruct in convincing detail just how any such system did evolve.
What counts as a sufficiently detailed historical narrative, though, is altogether subjective. Biologists actually know a great deal about the evolution of biochemical systems, irreducibly complex or not.
The New Yorker article from which the “endorsement” is drawn goes on. It is not condemning, per se, but it is definitely not an endorsement. Really, what the publisher has done is to take an introduction and to use it as an endorsement. It seems suspicious, at best.