It always amazes me how Darwinists, like democrats, resort to name calling in the absence of substantial contrary evidence. Your post is a clear example of atheisms high handed rule over science. By implying that "anti-E's" are not "normal" scientists, you have tipped your hat.
Normal scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals and are scrupulous about quoting others accurately. Behe and Dembski don't do either. Anti-E's are notorious for bearing false witness by misquoting normal scientists out of context, or as in Behe's case, adding a period in the middle of a sentence. If they were really trying to convince other people (scientist or not) that they were right, they'd be more honest. Therefore, one concludes they're not trying to convince anyone they're right, they're trying to get money from those who already disbelieve normal science. IOW, fleecing suckers.
Was Fred Hoyle (the b747-junkyard-tornado guy) a regular scientist, or someone who just craved a little attention after his pet theory (steady-state universe) was shot down? Is Dembski the Newton of informnation science (comparison some of his followers have made), or is he the Velikovsky?
Also, your confusing evolutionary theory with atheism.
Yes indeed, they cannot come up with evidence to refute his statements so they insult him. It has been more than a dozen years since he wrote Black Box by now and his claim that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex still stands. In fact, the discoveries of science in the last dozen years, clearly imply and in many cases prove with certainty that just about every single trait in an organism is irreducibly complex due to the complex interrelationships between every single part of the body and the dependance of every single trait and function on numerous other traits and functions.