Once more Ussery ignores what Behe actually wrote in order to attack his character:
So my point is, when Behe claims that in the E. coli evolution experiments 'Nothing fundamentally new has been produced.' (page 142), he is ignoring parts of the story which are extremely important. Since most people will not be familiar with the literature, we consider this to be misleading. There is a vast literature which shows just what can be done! Obviously evolution can happen in E. coli, on large scales, and it can be seen to happen under our very eyes, in the laboratory, under the right circumstances. With regard to the Lenski experiments, in my opinion, it is not being honest to only look at the first half of Rich Lenski’s experiments, where he saw little change, and to conclude that evolution does not happen in E. coli. The mutator (which arose halfway through) changed things dramatically.
What Behe actually wrote:
Nothing fundamentally new has been produced.  No new protein-protein interactions, no new molecular machines. As with thalassemia in humans, some large evolutionary advantages have been conferred by breaking things. Several populations of bacteria lost their ability to repair DNA….
It is this loss of the ability to repair DNA that, according to Behe is the mutator that Ussery is so enthusiastic about:
Interestingly, in this paper they report that the E. coli strain became a “mutator”. That means it lost at least some of its ability to repair its DNA, so mutations are accumulating now at a rate about seventy times faster than normal. Lenski had reported http://tinyurl.com/yge8dx4 years earlier that a number of other lines of the evolving population (they started with 12 separate cultures) had become mutators, too. So it seems that loss of ability to repair DNA is a common occurrence under these conditions.
Lenski is a very good self-promoter (no criticism intended; that’s a good thing — scientists have to interest other people in their work), and he always accentuates the positive. So if a gene is blasted to bits by a mutation, he talks cheerfully about how it is a beneficial change that helps the bacterium grow faster. One has to dig hard into the data to see that the bacterium is losing genetic info. In press coverage for this paper, he avows a “new dynamic relationship was established” in the bacterium’s evolution, and one has to read the details of the paper to find out that this is due to a degradative mutation that compromises its normal ability to repair its DNA.
Despite his understandable desire to spin the results his way, Lenski’s decades-long work lines up wonderfully with what an ID person would expect — in a huge number of tries, one sees minor changes, mostly degradative, and no new complex systems. So much for the power of random mutation and natural selection. For his work in this area we should be very grateful. It gives us solid results to point to, rather than having to debate speculative scenarios.
So yes, Behe did address Lenski's experiments after the "mutator" arose.
Meanwhile, even though Ussery has no trouble accusing Behe of "not being honest," he has yet to apologize or correct his obvious dishonest misquotes and misrepresentations of Behe. And apparently this is okay with Biologos. A shame.