The answer, obviously, is accurate quotes.
Unless I'm missing something, Behe doesn't apologize or promise to be more accurate in the future; he blames it on someone else, and then claims that converting ellipses to periods must be standard practice. Give me a break!
It is extremely difficult for me to understand why Coyne thinks his idea is anything other than a doubt about the efficacy of Darwinism
Maybe he should have asked him...
It appears to me at least that Behe's incomplete quote is dishonest, because it implies a doubt about (neo-)Darwinism (equals evolution in the mind of the public), not about the neo-Darwinian synthesis (equals gradualism in the minds of specialists). To be blunt, he's playing word games based on the ambiguous term (neo-)Darwinism.
(From Behe's response to the charge of crank or pseudo-science)
Here are some relevant sentences from pages 232-233: "The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell—to investigate life at the molecular level—is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’ The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrödinger, Pasteur and Darwin.... The magnitude of the victory, gained at such great cost through sustained effort over the course of decades, would be expected to send champagne corks flying in labs around the world. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even be an excuse to take a day off.... Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery?"
So unambiguous, so significant, but he can't be bothered to ssubmit his alleged results to normal scientific peer review!