Unless he uses actual scientific evidence to support his claims, he is a charlatan. I presume you are refering to the claim you mentioned earlier, "Behe makes a very specific claim concerning evolutionary science: There is almost nothing in the field on the specific evolutionary path of just about every complex biochemical system." That claim is so false that it hardly even merits mention. Choose a complex system, go to www.PubMed.org, search for evolution of that system: voilà, thousands of references pop up. When I discussed Behe's publishing history, that was his history publishing as a scientist, which is very limited. He may have 500 books published through some literal creationist publisher, but those are not scientific documents.
But you haven't been able to explain how those systems of proteins evolved.
As I have already pointed out, proteins evolve through DNA mutations. I believe I have also pointed out many types of DNA mutation that occur. If you want to know how a specific pathway evolved (which I'm going to assume is what you mean by "those systems of proteins"), then you need to specify which pathway. And once you've decided on a specific pathway whose evolution you'd like to understand more fully, you can start searching over at www.PubMed.org for the research articles detailing everything known so far about the evolution of that pathway.
More handwaving. Behe's charge has been out there for years. If you could refute it then you wouldn't need to resort to veiled references and insinuate the problem is just too complicated to explain to the rest of us rubes or try to use Behe's financial arrangement with his publisher to discredit him. Since you brought up his name, you should at least have some clue what the man's argument is.
Well, no offense, but it *is* complicated. You're basically challenging me to put several PhD dissertations' worth of material into a single forum post, and it can't be done. Again, no offense, but I am sorry that you do not have the scientific background to understand that I already did refute Behe's "charge" at least twice, and again above.
It is clear that you are simply thinking what you have been told to think with regards to Behe. All you really know is that he is one of "them", and so you are pulling out your multipurpose talking points to use against him.
Told by whom, exactly? I am not familiar with most of the charlatans who sell literal creationism; he happens to be one I *am* familiar with, and so I mentioned him, along with the others I have heard of. Oh, and where did my supposed "talking points" come from, anyway?
How do you know he doesn't? You can't label someone a charlatan unless you have specific evidence. I might vehemently disagree with one of Richard Dawkins books, but I can't call him a charlatan simply because I disagree with him, or even if he is wrong. And simply pointing out that he makes a living doing something as evidence he is a charlatan says a lot more about your lack of morality than his.
Choose a complex system, go to www.PubMed.org, search for evolution of that system: voilà, thousands of references pop up.
And very, very few have anything to do with any sort of evolutionary explanation of the steps involved in the evolution of any complex biochemical system. But I can put in any topic and the word "evolution" and get 100,000 hits. The abstracts are understandable. But when it comes to actually detailing how these molecular machines came into existence, I can't find anything. Pick one from Behe's book, or do I need to list them for you?
As I have already pointed out, proteins evolve through DNA mutations. I believe I have also pointed out many types of DNA mutation that occur.
I think we are all familiar with the 3rd grade explanation.
Well, no offense, but it *is* complicated. You're basically challenging me to put several PhD dissertations' worth of material into a single forum post, and it can't be done. Again, no offense, but I am sorry that you do not have the scientific background to understand that I already did refute Behe's "charge" at least twice, and again above.
LOL. So if I need something between the third grade explanation and your dissertation I am out of luck? That is called "avoiding the question." You didn't even know what Behe's charge was until I explained it to you, and you had already proclaimed him a charlatan. Scoffing is not an argument.