For the sake of argument we will start with the assumption that Behe's position is correct - The Theory of Evolution in it's current form cannot account for the complexity at the molecular level.
Behe's position is not correct. There appear to be no broad questions on the Theory of Evolution itself. We quibble over some important details but Evolution itself is not in question. Evolution does account for the molecular complexity in biological systems quite nicely.
But I'll play the game.
If I were a totally neutral observer armed with all the facts what arguments would you present to convince me that conclusion A should be given priority over B or vice versa?
Conclusion B is given priority as evidenced by history.
Science has an ability and a history of resolveing longstanding mysteries (Evolution's molecular complexity being one already resolved). There is no reason to doubt this will continue.
A quibbling suggestion:
The word "faith" has a set connotation to the religionists to be avoided in science discussions. I prefer "confidence" or "level of confidence" rather then "faith" in some scientific theory/hypothesis/view/whatever.
™ Version 4.2
