quote:
if Behe can provide these sorts of examples, he's obviously done some sort of research and study to draw such a conclusion
But not very much.
Behe's argument essentially adds up to:
1. Systems that only work when completely assembled cannot evolve by the simple addition of parts. (purely theoretical)
2. These systems do not work is part is removed (from other people's research).
3. It is unlikely that they would evolve in any other manner. (pure opinion - and not supported by any research - or even a solid understanding of evolution)
4. There is no current explanation of how this system evolved. (At best looking through other people's research).
5. Therefore it did not evolve.
Because point 3 is weak (and very likely false - decades earlier Mueller, taking a more realistic view of evolution predicted that evolution SHOULD produce "irreducibly complex systems") it cannot be considered a solid scientific argument.
quote:
so why is his study & research not considered science?
Aside from deficiencies in his research (which includes very little original research of his own) it's because the whole argument rests on an unsupported personal opinion.