Scientists heavily referencing the work of other scientists in order to advance their own work are not, in fact, an "echo chamber". They're wisely building upon the work already done, instead of starting over from scratch. The fact that research in the life sciences consistently supports the theory of evolution also does not mean an "echo chamber" is in effect. The laws of physics are invariant and immutable; no matter how many researchers examine physical phenomena, I expect their results to be consistent.
So not only has he committed the sin of not falling in line with evolution, he communicated his ideas to the general public. You admit yourself that means he has less time to publish "serious" papers, and that is your basis for calling him a charlatan.
The only reason Behe fails to "fall in line with evolution" is that he actively avoids having anything to do with the subject. He has never done any research that shows that any aspect of evolutionary theory is invalid, nor does he even propose workable hypotheses with which to test the validity of evolutionary theory. He's not communicating the results of his research to the general public (which would be fine); he's using his scientific education to hoodwink people by presenting fallacious ideas in what sounds like a sciency fashion to people who don't have the educational background to be able to tell the difference.
I am confused, are you a scientist or a priest? It must really get under your skin when us second class citizens dare to ask you to explain things to us.
Actually, I love explaining things. What I am responding to here is not that anyone is asking questions; it's that you're trying to claim a level of education that you don't demonstrate. I do try to answer questions as if they are asked with an open mind, even when they clearly are not.
"If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin
Ah, yes, now we get to quote mining. Of course, no one has yet falsified Darwin's theory of evolution using that set of criteria. Behe certainly hasn't.
It has an M. Behe as authoring or co-authoring 131 articles. I have read several (none by Behe) that looked promising on identifying evolutionary paths, but all proved disapointing.
Not all of those are Michael Behe, the literal creationist who actually earned a PhD in biochemistry. The first reference by that Behe is #6. When you click on that title, a citation appears. In the citation, it lists the author's affiliation which is Lehigh University. Since we can verify through other means (i.e. Google) that Behe works at Lehigh University, we can be reasonable sure that this is the "correct" Behe. When you click on his name within the citation, another list of 41 references pops up, and these are all the M Behe that we are looking for. One of the references is a duplicate; therefore, there are 40 references. My previous analysis of Behe's career was based on looking at those references; since I know the conventions of scientific publishing, the form of the references tells me a lot.
No, that isn't what I was trying to say. You are forming an opinion of Behe by reading the opinions of people who think like you do. There are charlatans in intelligent design and creation science (and every other endeavor), but I make that determination based on whether they are telling the truth, not whether I agree with them or how much other people may like them.
He's not communicating the results of his research to the general public (which would be fine); he's using his scientific education to hoodwink people by presenting fallacious ideas in what sounds like a sciency fashion to people who don't have the educational background to be able to tell the difference.
He has said that evolution science has not bothered to really put evolution through Darwin's own test and given specific examples.
What I am responding to here is not that anyone is asking questions; it's that you're trying to claim a level of education that you don't demonstrate.
What level of education would that be? I have no claims with regard to my education that I recall. As I posted before, you don't have to be a tailor to know the emperor is naked. If evolution is really so esoteric that you can't defend it to the masses you should stop trying to market it to the rest of us. You don't want an open mind, you want an audience of bobbleheads.