Irrelevant to my point. The Wikipedia article made the broader claim whether you think that broader claim is relevant or not. Only a very poor reference work would make such a broad claim without verifying that it was true. Oh, wait, Wikipedia is a very poor reference work (on origins issues, anyway)… So your excuse for Wikipedia is in fact no excuse.
List the number of “experts in molecular evolution and evolutionary biochemistry” cited by Wikipedia, and tell us what percentage of the “experts in molecular evolution and evolutionary biochemistry” worldwide is represented by the experts cited by Wikipedia.
We are talking here only about the statement made by Wikipedia and the evidence cited on Wikipedia to defend the claim. I was responding only to that, not to any general claim (based on information possibly available outside of Wikipedia) for or against Behe’s arguments.
Do you concede that Wikipedia did not adequately document its claim, even the narrower form of the claim which you insist was the real meaning of the (poor, unclear) Wikipedia writers?
If it did not, then Tim was wrong to cite the claim as if it proved anything. That was my only point.