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,
"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."
No. No one has a realistic model. The claim that Behe uses "the" Darwinian mechs is bogus, because they aren't known. A good model doesn't exist. You see the scientists deny Behe's claim that the model is good. Behe's and those he conned are the only ones that say his model is "good".
"...your argument is a philosphical argument about science, not a statement of science.
Again, science studies what is real and can be readily observed by anyone. It also takes as unique, the simplest natural force(s), or process of forces. Supernatural forces are the art of shaman's, not scientists.