Sorry but that is weak. He is huffy and puffy a lot, but doesn't have much of an argument. It is more of a concession:
"Living cells are filled, of course, with complex structures whose detailed evolutionary origins are not known. Therefore, in fashioning an argument against evolution one might pick nearly any cellular structure, the ribosome for example, and claim – correctly – that its origin has not been explained in detail by evolution. "He thens says that the machine can function with a missing part. If you were ever to really study Behe's argument you would know that he talks about that.
And the idea that irreducible complexity is false just because it was hypothesized a long time ago would by the same logic make evolution false.