Faith Well Grounded

I used it to point out the high mileage that his detractors have gotten out of the story.

Detractors (plural)? That right there is lumping his detractors in with this single atheist blogger who lumped Behe in with the other Creationists. Your generalization isn't as blatant, but it's still there.

Apparently, Dr. Morrow (himself a scientist familiar with the definition of "peer review") would agree with Dr. Behe that "Darwin's Black Box" was reviewed.

No one ever disputed it was reviewed. The question is: was this review more rigorous or even as rigorous as an article in a refereed journal?

Your comments about Morrow's statement don't really apply. I haven't read his review either and I'm not even sure it's available anywhere as this was an informal publisher review, NOT a formal journal review. The text quoted is from an email he sent describing his review years later.

As for Behe's posted correspondence with journal editors, note that he only picked a few short letters in the conversation, none of which were intended to be rigorous review of the submissions. It's apparent that the review documents do exist, but for some reason he chose not to post them.

My question still stands: what does "peer-review" mean to you? What purpose should it serve?