I suppose you have one of these irrelevant stories about Alfred Russel Wallace, too and the many thousands of scientists since who have presented evidence for evolution (myself included).
Wake up man. 99.9% of the evidence for evolution is post Darwin. You only pick on Darwin the man because you cannot pick on the actual science. Would you beat on Wallace, if he had beaten Darwin into print? I am ready for your anti-Wallacism posts. I know you need a whipping boy, since it's easier to make things personal than to dispute fact with nothing.
Evolutionists don't pick on Behe on a personal basis, but based on his lack of science and own published word. If his mother had taken too many drugs while she was pregnant and created some chromosome abnormalities in him to make the intellectual monster that he is, it would not be mentioned here. It is irrlelvant.
I can personally guarantee you that evolution would be where it is right now with or without Darwin and possibly further along.
Actually, I agree with you. For most men will think of anything to get rid of God who instructs them to live above the instincts of animals.
And I notice you had zilch to say about Annie's Box. I'd say that was a decent rejoinder to your post which contained the word 'idiot'. PH is right. You folks never insult t'all.