First, it isn’t “clear testimony” to Behe’s own view of how evolution happened. Did you listen to the same interview that I did? He makes it clear that he is talking about a logical possibility. He never asserts it as his own view.
Second, it isn’t the “first” time Behe has expressed this possibility, nor is it the first time you have been apprised of it. Many times on BioLogos I explained to you Michael Denton’s “front-loaded” view, and told you that Behe is open to Denton’s view as a possibility. So the contents of this interview should not be new to you.
As for whether Behe’s pool shot scenario would exclude Adam and Eve, I’m not sure about that. It doesn’t rule out the possibility that after the naturalistic evolutionary process has produced anatomically modern human forms, God does something special in relation to a particular couple. Of course, this would then move into the territory of Behe as Catholic rather than Behe as scientist. But I don’t think the two ideas are incompatible.
But for what it’s worth, I agree with you that Behe has not offered Joshua’s scenario.
Still, as has been pointed out by others, Joshua does not say that genetics compels acceptance of his scenario; it only allows for its possibility. I haven’t actually heard Joshua say, “And I personally believe this is how it happened.” I’ve only heard him say, “This could have happened, without violating anything we know about genetics.” So Joshua, like Behe, allows for a range of possibilities.
I think we have to be careful about pigeonholing people. It is pretty clear what Richard Dawkins and Ken Ham believe, but a number of people in between those extremes (Joshua, Ann, and Mike Behe) seem to have qualified positions that leave some doors open.