I don't share that impression, so I really have no idea.
I would advise against throwing that "testable explanation" rock, Mr. Glass House.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The theory of evolution certainly makes testable predictions. And a bunch have them have been observed to be fulfilled. That's part of its strength as a theory.
I certainly do not propose a testable natural explanation.
Okay...I'm not sure why you say that as though it's a good thing. Behe doesn't either, which is part of why intelligent design is such a weak theory. He could tell us what evidence an intelligent designer might leave behind and predict where we might find it, so others could help him look for it. But no.
Pointing out something similar is not going to cut it -- you are crowing about finding a narrow, shallow spot in the Grand Canyon.
Now you've totally lost me. You wrote, "take one of [Behe's] examples and show how it evolved (or could have evolved.)" I pointed you to Ken Miller, who's made something of a hobby of doing just that, or many of the results you get if you Google "irreducible complexity debunked." I don't feel like paraphrasing them for you, and I don't understand your Grand Canyon metaphor.
Really? To my knowledge no large scale change or drift in genetic code has ever been observed. Certainly some bacteria has gone through quite a few generations and the changes observed do not merit your blind faith in evolution.
I don't feel like paraphrasing them for you, and I don't understand your Grand Canyon metaphor.
There is no possible road. Pointing out something in the middle suggests there might be a path, but it doesn't define the path.