That's a pretty long explanation. I'll shorten it for you, while maintaining the same ideas:
1. Observation/ Question
Error of fact.
Strawman burning follows.
2. Hypothesis/prediction
Further strawman burning.
"We don't know".
Further strawman burning.
3. Experiment
Misinterpretation of mainstream scientific research.
Further strawman burning.
4. Conclusion
Non sequitur.
Internal contradiction of facts.
False dichotomy.
5. Publication
Complete and utter lack thereof.
Standard ID/creationist excuses.
This is my take on his Hypothesis from reading his book. I took notes from the book and this is where this information comes from. I may even have direct quotes in this presentation, but Idid not note them in my notes so forgive for not quoting exactly material or noting that this was a quote.
His book is largely nonsense, supported by further nonsense and mixed with a bit of pseudomathematics, to reach a preconceived conclusion.
Here's some advice: don't bother reading ID/creationist literature, including websites. They don't know enough about their own hypotheses, let alone about evolution, to start claiming it as a scientific breakthrough.
That is the best I can do. I do not understand the science of the research into molecular biology.
Just like you leave your lawyering, your accounting, your medicines, your house's construction, your car's work done by professionals, perhaps you should also leave biology to people who are actually involved in the research too.
It appears to me that Behe is qualilfied as a Biologists from his CV.
Indeed, Behe gained a PhD from UPenn (and before that, a BSc from Drexel) for research on sickle-cell disease followed by some work on DNA structure. He's one of the few -- if not the only -- ID/creationism supporters to have a proper degree from a recognised institution.
However, his work on ID is no more biological science than the average bloke's DIY fence is engineering expertise. He doesn't follow the method (as pointed out previously) and relies on arguments from incredulity combined with his religious beliefs.
Let me know what your thoughts are, but be gentle.
It would probably be best for you all to read his book to fully understand his position.
He's been countered by much more educated people than I before. And that was when the book got published. You've brought nothing new here.
We know what his position is. People like him have been trying to get it into schools since before my dad was born. Behe just tidies it up a little. I'll follow my own advice, and stick to reading what actually counts as science as determined by scientists. Perhaps you should do the same.
Edited by Nij, : Missing sentence.
Correction of stages of method.