Exactly as expected you can find no example of someone saying " Behe explicitly said intelligent design requires miraculous interventions into the natural order."
You made it up. Now you’re squirming to try and get that foot out of your mouth. A real trained scholar wouldn’t stoop to such disingenuous rhetorical tricks in the first place.
Does he say that the “intelligent guidance” must take the form of “intervention” or “miracles”? Or are his words compatible with guidance set up at the beginning?
And you’re still using inference, because Behe has not made a statement here, but is merely raising a question. (“… the question we are discussing … is whether …”) You’re inferring, from the way he words his question, what he thinks.
No one here has yet produced a direct and unambiguous statement. Behe has written tens of thousands of words on ID, and appeared on hundreds of podcasts and radio programs, and no one can produce a direct and unambiguous statement asserting that intervention would be necessary, yet everyone here insists that Behe deems it necessary. Very curious, don’t you think? Wouldn’t you think that in all that writing and talking, that, if Behe deemed intervention necessary, he would have clearly said so at least once? Without leaving the reader to have to infer it?
Many such statements have already been provided. No one can make you accept the evidence since you’re already decided to hand wave it way.
Did you or did you not write this?:
And if you did write it, do you stand by this statement, or are you now backing away from it?
Please avoid all speech-making and personal insults, and simply answer these two questions.
Yes. He says unintelligent processes, not designs, can not generate all gene folds, and process are physical implementions.
I didn’t write “Behe explicitly said intelligent design requires miraculous interventions into the natural order.” like you falsely claimed was said on this site.
Keep digging that hole deeper.
True, they are implementations, but that does not rule out the possibility that those processes were pre-loaded at the beginning. That is, it doesn’t prove that he rejects front-loading in favor of intervention.
Perhaps it may help you if I give you a link – which others here have already been given – to a statement of Behe that directly bears on this question:
Front loading still requires physical implementation and intervention. Did the pre-loaded values load themselves? You keep dodging the question.
You’re avoiding the question. I already indicated that I was dropping my previous summary statement and substituting a new one.
Did you write the statement I just quoted, the one with your name attached to it? (Yes/No)
Do you still hold to it? (Yes/No)
If you don’t answer these questions, or if you try to evade answering them, I will quite rightly conclude that you are afraid to answer them.
Is that your way of admitting you made a false claim and are now trying to walk it back? Why did you make the false claim in the first place?
Your weak attempts to deflect away from your most unscholarly behavior is noted.
I made no false claim. I offered a summary of the discussion, and stated openly that it was not a direct quotation. But I am now dropping that summary, not because it was inaccurate (it wasn’t), but because you contested the phrase “ID requires”; since I can’t find that phrase, then, even though it was implied by several people, I’m dropping it. I’m only going to hold people responsible for what they claimed, not what they implied.
And now that I’ve dealt with your delaying side-question, please answer my two questions. (If you come back again to quarrel about what I just wrote above, when I’m no longer insisting on my original summary, then you’re not arguing in good faith, and I’m done with you.)
Yes, you did. Several people called you on it and can’t walk it back now. It’s still there for everyone to see.
Sorry Eddie but you lost this discussion big time, even before you decided to perjure yourself.
As I predicted, you won’t answer the two straightforward questions about what you said, and whether you still hold to it. This is intellectual cowardice of the highest order. Not only is it cowardly, it loses you the debate, by default. You can’t walk out of the ring in the ninth round and declare even a tie, let alone a win. If you walk out of the ring, you lose the bout.
I agree, making a false claim about something no one said then trying to tap dance around it is intellectual cowardice of the highest order.
I’m content knowing everyone reading this thread can see who lost. 
I’m still here. Tell us more about how biological systems were intelligently designed but not implemented. 
Well, Faizal, as you can see, Tim refuses to either retract his original statement about Behe, or defend it. I will repeat his statement, and you can take up its defense if you wish:
Is Tim Horton correct. Does Behe “assert” this?
@Faizal Ali
I’ve already supported this with statements directly from Behe’s books. Other posters supplied more support . The Trained Scholar went “NUH-UH” and ignored all of them.
Feel free to waste time rehashing this with him just because he can’t be wrong about anything. Ever.
Oh, I can be wrong about things. But I’ve never lost a debate with you, ever. 
You can’t lose when you don’t know the science well enough to even engage.
As Dirty Harry once said, “You’re a legend in your own mind.”
But clearly not an accomplished or successful one. If you were, you wouldn’t go on so much about your training.
Wouldn’t a Serious Scholar such as yourself retract the false statement?
“Reply to my Critics”, p700.
Anyone familiar with the Kitzmiller transcripts could have found these easily, as could anyone who knows how to use a search engine. Here’s a link for you.
It is. If irreducibly complex features can’t evolve, then they equally can’t be the result of front-loading, so intervention is necessary in the lineage from single-celled forms to creatures with a complex brain.