You obviously haven't read any of the refutations of Behe's book. Irreducible complexity can evolve, and has been shown to evolve.
Sure I've read them. Half are wrong; half are irrelevent (the usual two methods of argumentation by hard-core mechanomorphs).
Obviously, you've never bothered to read Behe's refutation of his critics, or David Berlinski's articles in "Commentary" refuting Darwin, the Big Bang, evolutionary psychology, and ad hoc computer models purporting to "prove" that random mutation plus natural selection can actually cause simple organisms to evolve on their own into complex organisms, or Sir Fred Hoyle's book "The Mathematics of Evolution," or Hubert Yockey's "Information Theory and Molecular Biology," or Sir Francis Crick's statements favoring Intelligent Design, or Soren Lovtrup's "Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth," or Anthony Flew's statements favoring Intelligent Design, or Sir Karl Popper's outrageous declaration that Darwinism is a "metaphysical programme" -- a worldview -- not a science.
No doubt these are all on your reading list.
Darwinism was simply the 20th century's version of a creation myth; it's a materialist's retelling of a Kipling "Just So" story. Biologists in the U.S. were actually going to drop the theory in the 1930s because of lack of evidence. In the 1940s, a meeting of the top honchos (Mayr, Lewontin, etc.) revived the myth under the name of "neo Darwinism," combining the traditional circular reasoning of Darwin regarding "fitness" and "survival" with specious and irrelevent statistical reasoning regarding "population genetics." Mathematics, by the way, is a great tool for obfuscating logical reasoning, and has been used with great success toward that end (as we all know) in other subjects, such as economics.
The most honest explanation of Darwinian evolution was given (probably unwittingly) by Carl Sagan on a public TV special ("Discovery" perhaps) many years ago. In describing evolution, he waved a pointer -- sort of like a wand -- and magically, one species would change into another! Probably just wishful thinking on Sagan's part.