[Thatcherite]

Behe is a molecular biologist and sees everything from this prism. He has done a terrific job demonstrating the irreducible complexity at the molecular level.

Which must be why he doesn't find any significant support within science, even within his own university. Others have demonstrated that the BF is not IC at all as Behe originally defined IC. The IDists don't even seem to be able to provide a clear explanation of what IC or Specified Complexity is, let alone be able to explain how they know it when they see it.

He doesn't explore the paleontological evidence which evolution lacks.

I'm not quite clear. Do you agree with Behe's conclusions about evolution, common descent, and the age of the earth or not. Be aware, much of the most powerful smoking-gun evidence recently discovered that shows evolution to be true is molecular, and well within Behe's field of comprehension.

[dotnetfellow]

I'm not quite clear.

That you are not quite clear is clear. But of course you set up a false dichotomy and prop up your strawman, hoping to smooth over the rough edges of your theory. However, Behe's expertise in molecular biology doesn't materialize for you the overwhelming absence of transitional fossil records.