Well, maybe. But can you be more specific as to how? I am not expecting to be able to critique the nitty-gritty of the science nor anything close to it. I’ve stated many times on this thread my layman status. Just please try and put yourself in the position of the layman and ask yourself how one would decide between some of the plain sense things a Behe has to say and most of the folks here who claim the opposite or worse, that he is not much better than a fool. It is not difficult to see how the analogy of mechanical engineers relation to physics is analogous to the claim of evolutionary biologist to biochemistry. The physics is at a more base level than the engineering which is applied physics. If the engineering fails it will show up in the physics. Isn’t it the same with evolutionary biology/biochemistry. If things are going to evolve biologically, they are going to do it at the level of the molecule.
Let’s stress the part where you say, “he had the wit to try a simple experiment” and in that, especially the word, “simple”. As in grade school simple. ‘o-rings’ become stiffer and less responsive the colder they get. Think ice cream or butter or your rubber garden hose in the freezing weather as opposed to lying in the sun on a hot summer day. There was an entire team of engineers and managers from MortonThiokol that tried to persuade the NASA managers the night before the launch to delay until the weather warmed up. They launched at more than 15 degrees colder than the previous coldest launch, which had the most o-ring erosion or any of the missions.
As far as this layman understands, things evolve biological at the level of the molecule. Isn’t that biochemistry. If things evolve biological it can be glossed over or it can be elucidated at the level of the molecule. If things don’t change at the molecular level - they don’t change.
There is no mystery at all. The NASA managers didn’t want the truth to be the truth. The truth was a very, very inconvenient truth. On all previous missions during flight readiness review, all departments and sub-contractors were grilled strenuously as to why their system should be deemed flight-ready. On the 25th space shuttle mission, upon Morton Thiokol’s recommendation not to launch, they were asked to prove that it was unsafe to do so and that the mission would fail. The flight had already been delayed numerous times and the window for the teacher in space to deliver her lesson from space was rapidly closing, and the pressure to get the thing aloft was tremendous. So there is no ‘mystery’ as you suggest.
When it comes to this issue of ID and IC there are also strong motivations for not seeing our (all of our) opponents’ position. Is our opponents position just very inconvenient? Is it one that we will not accept regardless of the strength of the position? Will we strawman it ad infinitum?