The first link I checked showed that Behe had already done so, contrary to your implication.
You're making less and less sense with each post.
That response by Behe addressed *different* points made by *other* reviewers, and did not address the points *I* made, CONTRARY TO YOUR IMPLICATION.
The only question that remains is are you invoking this irrelevant dodge through an inability to follow the arguments, or through intellectual dishonesty.
I have no time to "debate" with sneaks.
I have all the time in the world to debate with sneaks -- it's a hobby of mine. I'm happy to spend all day pointing out your weaselings.
If you don't want to keep being a sneak yourself, though, stop making false accusations and cheap excuses for why you won't actually deal with the points I raised about Behe's work. Stop trying to attack me as somehow "intellectually dishonest" for not posting a link to Behe's reply to my posts when he hasn't made any replies to my posts. Stop getting snotty about my somehow trying to hide Behe's response to his other critics when you yourself admit that I provided a link to an article which clearly referenced it. Stop whining about how it's somehow *my* job to present all possible counterpoints to my points when a) that's *YOUR* job (which you're doing quite poorly at the moment) and b) I haven't noticed *YOU* linking to any of the critiques of YOUR many claims on this thread -- hypocrite much? Stop being snippy about my "cut-and-pasting" someone else's argument (which was *mine*, as it turned out) when you yourself keep defering to Behe (including linking whole articles by him) instead of composing your own arguments. Stop coming up with multiple lame excuses for why you don't think you have to actually address (or apparently even think about) the points I raised about Behe's work. Stop being a sneak yourself, and stop falsely accusing me of doing so when I've been dealing head-on with Behe's arguments and your scattershot replies. Stop pretending that you want an "intellectually honest" discussion when your side of the discussion has been anything but.
Deal with it.
Consider yourself dealt with.
Now, are you going to finally get around to addressing the weaknesses I pointed out in Behe's work, or shall I take your failure to do that as an admission that you are unable to do so?
So you footnoted references that had nothing to do with the points you made? You're making less and less sense with each post.