While I would have to respect anyone who made an album of duets with flute Grand Master Robert Dick (this is the guy who pioneered multitonal music on the flute), I hesitate to award Lanier any authority whatsoever on scientific matters.

I think Lanier's opinions on science - as on much else - are highly underwhelming. In fact, I'm astonished that he is given the airtime that he is.

For an introduction, check out his rant against Wikipedia (yes, rather than receive credit for his own work, he seems to prefer to get credit for hacking on other people's), a.k.a. "How dare they edit my bio page!". (For an introduction better than I could summarize, see Lanier on Wikipedia, at the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jaron_Lanier.)

Or, judge for yourself at his Neo-Luddite web "page": http://www.jaronlanier.com/. (Have fun trying to find a link that works.)

In fact, as SilentMike pointed out just now, the chief interest of the article is Richard's comment on Behe's book.