"Mr Hands also misses the point that Behe accepts small-scale evolution in the book anyway. If he read the book, he certainly didn't understand it." P. M. Fernandez
Small scale evolution? What exactly qualifies as small scale? because viewed one way all evolution that has ever been proposed is small scale. Mr Hands point of the changes seen in domesticated animals is a valid one, as in the 5,000 years in which animals have been bred vast changes have been seen in the animals. Horses for example have grown in size substantially during this time, as have beef cattle. Even more striking are the changes in the fish population of the Atlantic, as due to fishing the average size of many species of fishes has evolved to be half of what they were as little as 200 years ago. If these "small" changes have occurred in the last 200 years is it stretching the imagination to see modern species looking totally different 5 million years ago?
By accepting small-scale evolution Behe inevitably accepts all of evolution as given time these small evolutionary changes build up to large and total changes.
AS Wijnberg: "By accepting small-scale evolution Behe inevitably accepts all of evolution as given time these small evolutionary changes build up to large and total changes."
So you have either not read his book, or you haven't understood it, then. Nor, for that matter, have you really got to grips with the darwinism/anti-darwinism debate. A human isn't just a bacteria with a few bits stretched around. The difference between prokaryotic life and eukaryotic life is not a matter of just growing a bit or shrinking a bit - as is the difference between unicellular and multicellular - as is the addition of any complex biochemical or multicellular process. There has been no evolutionary change to the fish - if the population were left alone, it would return to its original state. The other examples are artificial selection, not natural selection - a guided process can't be an analogue for an unguided one. And in any case, all of these are examples in the changes of expression of existing functionality within an organism, not the development of new functionality.
You have apparently been convinced by half-arguments and the sort of things that are presented in school as "evidence for evolution". The debate is substantially more complex than that, and you should have apprehended this at least from Behe's book.
I disagree with the assertion that acceptance of "small-scale" evolution leads to the inevitable acceptance of all evolution. Every instance of small-scale evolution I can think of (especially those involving the changes to domestic animals) is predictable, reversible, and an illustration of genetic potential already present in the animal. The huge genetic changes required to convert creatures of one phylum to another are a whole different ball game.