Post the refutations here instead of sliming the man. I have been on these threads a long time and have not read a refutation, just slander and slime.
I am fairly used to your tactic of making claims contrary to common scientific and worldly knowledge, and then demanding an encyclopedia of in-line, expanded references when someone objects. Only to have you tap-dance off to another subject, either with no acknowledgement, or some zany, irrelevant illogical nonsense I can't even decipher. I have taken this bait 1/2 dozen times or so, since you started posting, and I'm tired of it. I posted a reference to a currently published, popular book, which will extensively point you to the specific references in "The Journal of Evolutionary Micro-biology".
It is fairly common knowledge in scientific circles that Behe nailed his own feet to the floor by failing to research his claims, at least one of which had already been refuted before his book was published. I gave you a reference that will take you to the exact articles in the journal. Read it or don't, it's up to you, but you have used up the principal of charity on this subject with your very extra-ordinary demands of scholarship without recourse to reference, followed by what I can reasonably assume is faked obtuseness, and I have no further scholarly obligation to you beyond what a scholar normally owes anyone, and which I've provided.
Well, since it is such common knowledge, then you should have no problem posting a refutation of intelligent design. As I have told you, I have seen nothing but slimes of it. Your post while sounding reasonable, does not in any way give a refutation of it. It is just an excuse for not giving the proof requested.
As to the proof you gave - the quack Dawkings, is no biologist, he is just a nutcase atheist whose books are full of ridiculous statements such as that natural rock formations show as much design as Mt. Rushmore. Such as that descent is the same as adaptation only more so. He even wrote a phony program to "prove" chance mutation by phonying up the solution.
You have read the book, you say it has a refutation of Behe, post it here. Else, your statements are just a slime. Further if the "proof" against Behe has been given so many times, you should have absolutely no problem in copying and pasting such proof here.
The evolutionists here always claim that the proof is elsewhere or has been given many times before. Give the proof against Behe, give the proof against intelligent design. Do it here - if you have it.