The quote was cited. It came from his own writings. Just google it. You can substantiate the claim just about anywhere.
Any decision on whether or not you support Behe's opinions about evolution? Behe is of course fully aware of the molecular evidence supporting evolution, such as the predicted (and crushingly supportive of evolution) match between the endogenous retroviral evidence and the morphological evidence. So, do you agree with Behe or not that evolution is true, and that there is no physical evidence that the Designer has intervened for many millions of years, and that all life on earth shares common descent? Or is your support of ID just an opportunistic sham?
Incidentally both Denton and Dembski are on the record as being in agreement with Behe that fundamentally the evidence from numerous fields shows that evolution has occurred. Do you agree with them or not?
Although fossil species appear to persist unchanged through many strata, sequences of species clearly showing evolutionary trends abound, and records of one species transforming into another also exist (see below) although such are rare. And, of course fossil species are fully formed and functional! A partially formed and nonfunctional organism would die before or shortly after birth. Such species couldn't possibly exist to form fossils. Actually the phrase "fully formed" is used by Gould (1977) to describe the first appearance of a species in the fossil record. Gould simply meant that usually such species have all the features that characterize them throughout their subsequent period of stasis. He did not mean that higher categories (genera, families, orders, etc) appear fully formed in this sense (they don't) nor did he mean that transitional forms are not fully formed in the sense that they are incomplete and nonfunctional.Unline you I will provide a link - I found this here.
So evidently I was wrong - even though he quoted it, it is Gould's term. I find that usage quite unobjectional, indeed how can one object to the idea that species have defining characteristics and that some earliest fossil will have them? I'm sure that's what you intended to convey in your post (yeah, right).