I’m of two minds on this one, but I have taken your comments seriously and they do have merit. As you say later in your post, it really comes down to the proposed scientific claims. More to the point, Behe’s claims lack traction at the level of detail biologists work at.
The topic of the debate between Behe and Larry Moran is a really good example of what I am talking about. To sum up Behe’s position, drug resistance in malarial parasites requires two improbable mutations, but the improbability of these mutations occurring together is overcome by the sheer number of parasites. Behe uses this as a model for the improbability of evolution in other lineages that don’t have as many organisms in their population, such as the human lineage.
This begs a HUGE question. What human adaptations required two specific and rare mutations? Behe doesn’t say. In fact, Behe can’t point to a nearly impossible adaptation in any species. The whole argument lacks traction because he can’t come up with a single real biological example where it can be applied.
From a philosophical and theological I can certainly see the problem with putting God under the scientific microscope. The other problem is that Behe’s science is just bad.