a very interesting article by Behe at the link you provided. I do have one question for you. Why would you ever think that this article reflects poorly on Behe?
I would suggest that if Behe is as articulate on these matters during the trial, he is going to come across very well for the defendants. Even thugh i have nevewr read this particular article by Behe - I did read his book - his reasoning for ID, and against evolution, is very similar to what I have been stating; but then I'm a really smart guy.
Since it was written BY Behe, I wouldn't expect it to reflect poorly on him.
I don't play the quote mining game, and I wish to argue against the best case that can be made for my opponent.
Behe does not appear to be a young earth creationist, nor does his current position appear to differ much from mainstream science. If he wants to believe the game of life was set up at the moment of creation, I am not going to oppose his belief or ridicule him.
Such a belief, however, has no effect on the findings or conduct of science. It has no impact on the accepted age of the earth, no on common descent. It has no discernable impact on Darwinian evolution, except to say that the cards were rigged from the beginning.
A theory that has no impact on current practices and which predicts nothing different from current expectations is something of a hollow shell.
Like ID, the evidence to support the claim is very hard to see...
Forget it! He's making way too much money selling charlatan books to fools to get up on a stand and swear to tell the truth.