Unlike Behe, they do not conclude just because they cannot yet understand,
that this is evidence of an intelligent designer. Such conclusions were
reached in the centuries before us as well when science was unable to
explain (at that moment) the intricacies of life.
If Behe's argument is that we do not understand many systems in detail,
that's fine. But how Behe concludes this shows Intelligent Design,
especially when we do not know all the details yet, is beyond me.