Could've fooled me; I just looked up a talk.origins archive article on "irreducible complexity" and saw no sputtering or name calling, but rather precisely the calm, quiet rebuttal you seem to think doesn't exist.
It may be calm, but it is still nonsense. Behe's famous example, the bacterial flagellum, has yet to be refuted - a dozen years later. The article in no way addresses it. Further, science has shown and keeps showing that many of the statements there are incorrect. Junk DNA is not junk. The wings of the Drosophila are an example against evolution. In addition to which science keeps showing that genes themselves are inextricably connected to the rest of the organism and it would require the coevolution of an entire support mechanism for them to be able to produce any useful traits.
You were fooled. The name calling starts in the second paragraph:
I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.
And a rebuttal which says it is possible to posit such an evolutionary process isn't much of a rebuttal. Walt Disney posited a talking mouse.
A good rebuttal uses examples from reality. The one making it should never wind up with a conclusion such as:
I'll confess I do not know for sure. Many of the proteins of both these systems fulfill the similar sequence criterion, though this is a weak test. The much stronger test, and major violation of the "irreducible complexity" postulate, would be to find varying cascade systems in the living world. If, for example, I found a system with one less level than human, that would already show that the human system is not "irreducibly complex", violating Behe's claim that "not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway." Again, it's not my speciality, and I am unaware. Indeed, it is quite possible that it remains an unexplored area.