[Know your rights]

That response by Behe addressed *different* points made by *other* reviewers, and did not address the points *I* made

So you footnoted references that had nothing to do with the points you made? You're making less and less sense with each post.

[Ichneumon]

[That response by Behe addressed *different* points made by *other* reviewers, and did not address the points *I* made]

So you footnoted references that had nothing to do with the points you made? You're making less and less sense with each post.

I'll try to keep this simple so you can keep up for a change: That reference covered many different points. Some of those points were relevant to my post, which is why I footnoted it, but Behe's response dealt only with a few *other* points in that reference, which is why his response was irrelevant to the points in *my* post. This should have been quite obvious to anyone who actually bothered to *read* the material.

Are we clear now, son?

With regards to your failure to even attempt to respond to the following question I posed in that same post:

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?

I now conclude that you are indeed unable to defend the identified weaknesses in Behe's work.