"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.
Again, your statement is a philosophical statement about science, not a statement of science. It is not itself an empirical construct.
...science studies what is real
Do you believe that science itself operates according to the laws of physics, that science itself, like everything else is purely physical, and material in nature, or, in other words, what you call "real"? If not, then on what basis do you imply that "the laws of physics govern the world"? But if the laws of physics govern the world how can scientists act as objective observers unless they themselves transcend the laws of physics, and how can they transcend the brute forces of physics if they are simply and nothing but a part of them?
Cordially,