But not irrelevant to my point – the point I was making to Tim when you butted in. 
You’ve provided a “rescue” to excuse bad, unclear writing. Wikipedia articles are written for the layman, not for professional scientists. The layman, reading the words as written, will most likely interpret them as I suggested, and therefore would be misled. (In fact, I have more scientific training than most laymen, and that’s how I read them.) If the same words had been written in a professional journal of evolutionary biology, your excuse would be more relevant.
All, even if true, irrelevant to my point to Tim. I have no intention of discussing the scientific achievements of Behe. I limited my point to indicating a false and/or undocumented statement in a Wikipedia article. But as usual, a simple point which should have been granted immediately is now generating multiple caviling replies which attempt to change the topic. General rule of Peaceful Science: “Whatever Eddie says must be opposed, even when he’s not defending ID or any ID argument, but simply pointing out a false statement which could easily be granted while still rejecting ID.”
I would predict that, should I be foolish enough to keep responding, the caviling over this very small point will mushroom into twenty or thirty posts, with a least four or five atheist posters jumping in, all refusing to yield even a millimeter to my point. And eventually Mercer will jump in and start talking about peptidyl transferase. The discussions here simply are not adult ones.
The lazy, unscholarly route, you mean – and the route which most suits Wikipedia’s ideological aims regarding all origins articles. If they didn’t have any way of determining accurately, by normal standards of statistical reporting, the reaction of “the scientific community”, they should have shut their mouth about “the scientific community.” They could have simply said, “the majority of published reviews of Behe’s work by people in the life sciences find Behe’s argument unconvincing.” That would have been an accurate statement, and one to which I would not have objected, as a report of the reactions to Behe coming from a certain group of scientists. But of course, Wikipedia has every motive to inflate, exaggerate, overclaim, etc., given its ideologically motivated stance on origins issues.
Then why did Wikipedia bring up the number of scientists who supposedly opposed Behe? And why did Tim cite it? You should direct this criticism to Wikipedia and Tim, not me. And by the way, given that you have never done a shred of scientific research in your life, how do you know how science operates?