See #175. The scientific arguments are aimed at Behe's model, which is rubbish. In fact Behe's model shows only that his model is insufficient to explain the observations, nothing more. A third grader could do the same. The only difference is in the skill expended in the art of the con.
After Behe does a considerable amount of handwaiving, he then makes 2 concluitons:
1. That some unknown, nonphysical abitrary force exists.
2. That this arbitrary force is intelligent.
In the first place your argument is a philosphical argument about science, not a statement ofscience, so it is essentially self-refuting. If you say as you did in #175 that, "The laws of physics are not sufficient and you abandon science to inject a arbitrary force , else they are and you stick with science, admit ignorance and work more...Science does not deal with arbitrary forces, nor does it deal with any intangible, unresponsive unknowns..." you are making statements that are not themselves derived from the scientific method, and so are themselves arbitrary and self-contradictory.
In the second place, you distort Behe's conclusions in circular reasoning that simply presupposes that life is not designed, but which is the point at issue. Behe's model shows NOT that his model is insufficient to explain the observations, but that Darwinian mechanisms are insuffiencent to produce the phenomena. There's a big difference.
That you call his approach unscientific shows more about your presuppositions and your arbitrary defintion of science than it does anything about Behe's conclusions.
Cordially,