Please refute Behe by citing the scientific papers detailing the biochemical mechanisms 1) of evolution and 2) how certain biochemical mechanisms that Behe mentions actually evolved.
His charge is simply that you aren't doing your homework.
As far has making money on it goes, that is a standard democratic/leftist tactic. I am sure writing pro-evolution pieces is equally lucrative. Why the concern over having competing ideas? Isn't wanting to shut people up a little Orwellian?
First of all, biochemical mechanisms of evolution do not evolve: they are the physical consequences of matter behaving according to immutable physical law. Furthermore, the term "biochemical mechanisms of evolution" is rather vague. Does that refer to the processes that alter DNA bases (e.g. A becomes G)? Or to one of the many processes of DNA repair that have widely variable rates of accuracy? Does it refer to the mechanisms of chromosome cross-over and rearrangement? Gene duplication? Horizontal gene transfer? Or, maybe could that be a reference to transposons? Perhaps those "biochemical mechanisms of evolution" do not refer so much to the behavior of DNA as a result of the laws of physics so much as they refer to the environmental pressures that cause organisms with certain configurations of DNA to survive better than those with other DNA configurations. I really can't tell.
His charge is simply that you aren't doing your homework.
No, I've done my homework. Behe is simply a charlatan who has a legitimate degree in biochemistry and chooses to use it in a dishonest, anti-science manner. He's not the first person to misuse a good education for personal profit, and, sadly, he won't be the last.
As far has making money on it goes, that is a standard democratic/leftist tactic. I am sure writing pro-evolution pieces is equally lucrative. Why the concern over having competing ideas? Isn't wanting to shut people up a little Orwellian?
Let me see--scientists who want to publish their "pro-evolution pieces", i.e., the results of their research, do not get paid for publishing these results. Some journals charge publication fees; PLoS One, for example, charges a fee of $1,350. Journals also charge more to print color graphics than black and white (and almost all scientific publications contain some sort of graphics). With the hefty fees so many journals charge for publishing, I fail to see how any scientist can make money by publishing.
On the other hand, I can look at websites promoting young earth creationism and see that they both ask for donations and sell merchandise. For example, right at the top of Answers in Genesis (.org), there is a store offering several categories of merchandise, as well as a "support" where you can volunteer your time, make donations, and even set up regular monthly donations. Apparently, anti-science is quite lucrative, for those with no morals.