Directly relevant to your point. I’ve already provided the necessary clarification for how to understand a term like “the scientific community” used in the Wiki article on Behe.
Whatever the heck Wkipedia lists is irrelevant to my point. And in any case I’ve already addressed your meaningless obsession with polls and lists. The reception and impact of a scientists work can be assessed better by looking at his citations. Who is citing his work and what for?
Behe writes more books than papers, and both are cited almost entirely by apologists and philosophers of religion, and when and if he’s cited by biochemists and evolutionary biologists it’s almost always to either rebut him, or in papers discussing the influence of creationism and religion in the classroom in the US.
Sorry mate. Behe has effectively no scientific achievement worthy of note. His impact on the field of evolutionary biochemistry remains essentially zero. He’s a total nobody in his field of expertise. His ideas are known only as a product of their socio-cultural and political influence in deeply conservative religious circles. His work, in so far as it is used by anyone at all, is used in religious apologetics.
By implication his peers in the field he works in has found no value in his work.