Plantinga vs. Dennett

Recently I listened to a debate between the philosopher and theologian A. Plantinga and the atheist philosopher D. Dennett. It can be easily found in You Tube.

I only want to make one comment about something Plantinga said in Part 2 of the debate. In there he seemed to support (much to my surprise) Behe's idea (explained in his last book) of considering plasmodium, the parasite that causes Malaria, an irreducible complexity. The fact that Behe hasn't shown any scientific evidence so far about any of the affirmations he confidently proclaims, and the fact that his arguments seem to be flawed even from the theological (specifically christian) point of view, makes me wonder what Plantinga is really doing by appealing to Behe's ideas in his search for a solution to the problem of science, naturalism, religion and faith. I would've thought a philosopher of the calibre of Plantinga wouldn't have needed to use Behe's flawed arguments (nor any of the ID proponents's) to support the claim that evolution and theism are not incompatible. The fact that he does, makes me wonder whether perhaps he might be in favour of such ID theories. If this is so, I would expect him to read a bit more about it before stating such positive affirmations about them. He can start with Kenneth R. Miller's books, in which he exposes the numerous problems with Behe's (and other ID proponents's) arguments.

To confirm the impression I got in Part 2, Part 3 shows Plantinga talking about the problems that complexities at the molecular level pose to evolutionary theory (remiscient of the vocabulary used by Behe and other ID proponents in their books). This is, in my opinion, quite worrying (for christians). If the only way that christian philosophers and theologians have to give God a place in the evolutionary process is by appealing to 'irreducible complexities', we are indeed doomed. I would've expected a more serious attempt, on Plantinga's side, to answer some of the serious questions posed by evolutionary atheists. In this occasion Dennett had it, I think, too easy...