Hold on a second - you claim to be familiar with TIBS, and yet in number 26 you posted:
It's a peer reviewed article in a major journal and it does, to the mind of the debaters, have to do with ID.
TIBS is not a major journal and not peer reviewed, as you apparently know. Why did you refer to the Behe TIBS review as 'a peer reviewed article in a major journal'?
The point being the type of weird denials and smears that go on here by the anti-Creationists are like the dem and lib tactics.
Physician, heal thyself.
TIBS is well read and respected. Major is subjective. The Trends/Today series is pretty good. I'm not sure why you want to knock it.
As far as peer review, you can go to this technical level. It is a review journal, not a research journal, so fair enough, but a kind of evasion of the issue. Your description of it suffices to make the point. They don't publish articles from people who are not peers or have no standing in the field. That's the point. Agree or disagree with Behe he has published biological research in quite major (eg J. Mol. Bio) and well read journals.
He ain't going to win a Nobel prize, but few do.
Why would you expect a Creationists to be truthful, even about things easily checked?
The irony with which you quote Christ is duly noted . . .