Honest people.
Why is it a 'usual charge'? Because there are repeat offenders.
The guy does not even give the quote by Behe for comparions, that's how lame the charge is.
Huh? It's in the linked-to article:
Jerry Coyne, of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, arrives at an unanticipated verdict: "We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak." (p 29 darwin's black box)
Apparently I am one of those faint-hearted biologists who see the errors of Darwinism but cannot admit it. This was news to me... (Coyne speaking)
This is what Behe started with:
Although a few biologists have suggested an evolutionary role for mutations or large effect (Gould 1980; Maynard Smith 1983: Gottlieb, 1984; Turner, 1985), the neo-Darwinian view has largely triumphed, and the genetic basis of adaptation now receives little attention. Indeed, the question is considered so dead that few may know the evidence responsible for its demise. Here we review this evidence. We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation.
We hasten to add, however, that we are not "macromutationists" who believe that adaptations are nearly always based on major genes. The neo-Darwinian view could well be correct. It is almost certainly true, however, that some adaptations involve many genes of small effect and others involve major genes. The question we address is, How often does adaptation involve a major gene? We hope to encourage evolutionists to reexamine this neglected question and to provide the evidence to settle it.
Notice how Behe inserted a period. This is one of the reasons for the peer-review process.
Has Behe apologized and promised to clean this up in future printings?
Apparently you do not understand what the neo-Darwinian view is. The neo-Darwinian view is that evolution is gradual, the sense of the Coyne article is that it is not. Therefore the quote is correct and does not say something contrary to what Coyne said.
Now as I said before, to attack someone for a period! is pretty lame. His work remains regardless of his ethics and his work has not been refuted in spite of numerous attempts at such a refutation and what is important for this discussion is not Behe, but his work.