Is there any evidence at all that the author of that post has even read Behe’s latest book?
There is evidence he is relying on the assessment of @nlents, @swamidass, and Lenski. I can confirm our assessment remains correct.
If he’s just re-posting material that has already been posted here it should probably be considered spam. At least the article by Coyne appeared to have some original thinking in it that went beyond just repeating what someone else had already said.
@patrick is not reposting anything. I agree that there is no new content in the linked blog post.
He certainly didn’t as the book isn’t out yet.
The only thing I am posting here is another person’s views on what they read in Science. I find it interesting to read the comments on articles such as these. Lots of interesting comments.
The open question is are these claims based on opinion. When you use the strong words like refuted and that is simply the existence of a counter argument I am a little skeptical that all you have is a biased opinion piece by a writer not necessarily familiar with the subject.
Is this just propaganda and is that what we really want to discuss here?
Yes, it IS pro-science propaganda aimed squarely at the anti-science propaganda put out by Behe and DI.
Fair enough. Let me modify that to anti evolutionist propaganda.
No, it is more than anti-evolution. It is anti-geology, anti-astronomy, anti-astrobiology, anti-OOL chemistry, anti-meteorology. I could keep going, so anti-science is accurate.
You left out anti-atheist. 
Science is neutral on atheism (and theism). Doesn’t really belong in a discussion of science.
In my opinion this is a stretch. How would you support this claim? Can you site their criticism of General Relativity or the Big Bang.
what claim? I am not making any claims.
I would support it with a strong foundation, one not built on sand.
who? AiG?
No, the anti evolution propaganda machine you don’t like.
Yes, I’m skeptical of that too. But perhaps that isn’t what you meant to say.