In other words, you can't answer those questions and haven't found good explanations? Behe's book Darwin's Black Box isn't outside his field. Saying that the origin of living creatures is outside the scope of evolution doesn't really make sense since Darwin's "tree of life" is based on the premise that there was an original creature. That seems like a tremendous shortcoming and surely it has been addressed somewhere. Also, I would like to read a good explanation of how these "accidental variants" came about since they are so many and varied and that they constitute a huge amount of "accidents" to make a snake, a sloth, a chicken and blue whale for example. These are real questions which must have been or should be answered through scientific method. Otherwise, they are big holes in Darwin's theory as far as I can tell.
!. The origin of living matter from non-living (if that's how it happened) would, as a scientific study be more in the fields of geology and biochemistry than biology. It's certainly not a part of evolution, never was and never will be. Evolution has to do with how species differentiate, a more than large enough field as it is.
2. Behe has no credentials in evolutionary biology that I am aware of. Would you like a link to a critique of his work?
3. The huge number of "accidents" involves a huge number of years and a huge number of organisms. When an environmental niche opens up tremendous differentiation can occur in a very short (geologic) time...then the less well adapted die out.
All responses postponed until I get back from work.