[Dimensio]

No, if YOU find fault with Behe's work because of your own research and observations, lets have it.

Ah, so criticisms are only valid if the person putting them forth is the one who authored them.

By that standard, just about any criticism of evolution presented here on FR is rendered moot, because most people pushing forth the criticisms didn't author them originally.

I'll give you a graceful out--you're up on your Stephen Jay Gould, yes? Where did the man see problems with Darwin's theories?

Gould disagreed with gradualism, at least universal gradualism.

What completely unprovable theories did he devise?

All theories are, by definition, unprovable, so any theories that Gould put forth are unprovable.

[Torie]

The provability/plausibility/evidence tending to support, of theories is a continuum. Some are way out there, others have considerably more traction. One size does not fit all. It is in the end an odds thingy. But I suspect, the truth odds on many theories are overstated; it is a reflection of the state of hubris of the human species.

[kidkosmic1]

Circular arguments.

Why argue the unprovable in science or religion?