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.
Seriously, my opinion of Behe is only based on what I've read about him? And there is no possibility whatsoever that I could have judged his qualifications based on my personal examination of the publically available information on his scientific career?
Oh, I certainly agree that there are charlatans in intelligent design and creation science. If they are the main brains behind "intelligent design" (ID) or creation "science" (CS), they are charlatans. Otherwise, they are misguided followers. Since neither ID nor CS are scientific disciplines, and cannot be used to inform and guide actual hands-on bench research (refering to the lab bench on which we set up experiments), the logical conclusion is that they are inventions meant to convey the illusion that religion is a functional science.
He has said that evolution science has not bothered to really put evolution through Darwin's own test and given specific examples.
He's said nothing of the sort. Given that evolutionary theory is the backbone of the life sciences, every aspect of that theory has been tested countless times. The scientific community has added to and refined that theory numerous times; a huge amount of evidence supports it.
I should take a minute to clarify that the word "theory" as used by scientists does not have the same meaning as the word used by laypersons. A scientific theory is a framework that unites all the known facts into a coherent whole, and provides for making testable predictions (hypotheses) of new facts. The process of evolution was known to the ancient Greeks; a number of theories were proposed to explain it, and the theory that turned out to most accurately explain the process and have the most robust predicting powers was Darwin's version. The refinements that have taken place over the 1.5 centuries since Darwin made his proposal have strengthened the theory and made it an even better reflection of the physical processes. Do we have every detail correct? Probably not; that may be an impossible goal. Is the current theory of evolution adequate to point researchers in the right direction and keep us on track? Absolutely.
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.
I'll be blunt: everything you have said so far indicates that your knowledge of science is based on literal, young-earth creationist literature. That hardly qualifies as a well-rounded science education. If you have a genuine interest in science, I highly recommend staying away from the ID or CS literature and reading the science literature or taking some classes at your local community college.
The problem is not that science is so esoteric that we can't defend it to the masses. The problem is that charlatans whose major concern is personal profit exploit people's natural doubts about their religious faith (and, face it, everyone has occasional doubts) while promising that they have all the answers that will erase those doubts drown us out. We're trying to communicate; within our community, we're trying to figure out how better to reach out to the general public. But our quiet and rational voices can't compete with the boisterous hubbub of quacks promising miracles.