Actually, Behe's contribution pretty much boils down to coming up with a definition for "irreducible complexity" that doesn't really apply to the natural world and then claiming that because the Theory of Evolution didn't jibe with his arbitrary and capricious definition, it was clearly the Theory of Evolution that is wrong.
Don't forget Behe's other contribution: Selling lots of books. His publisher loves him.
Irreducible complexity is a concept that is probably dominant in science rather than exceptional.
Almost all science done today demonstrates that events that appear to be accidental have causes. Forensics medicine is a simple example.
I have no personal disagreement with evolutionary biology as a study but I do reject the outrageous censorship of scientiests such as Behe. Students should be able to access the controversies of evolution rather than be dogmatically told that all questioners are practicing pseudo science.
>>>Actually, Behe's contribution pretty much boils down to coming up with a definition for "irreducible complexity" that doesn't really apply to the natural world and then claiming that because the Theory of Evolution didn't jibe with his arbitrary and capricious definition, it was clearly the Theory of Evolution that is wrong.<<<
It would be helpful if evolutionists could explain irreducible complexity so we could put this matter to rest; or stop the book-burning so we could investigate further.