Namely, that the evolutionary scientist is commited to his philosophy of life. He isn't any more objectively neutral in his presupositions than the theistic scientists you feel have given up. This is why we must consider this issue of evolutionism and creationism on a different level. That is why refereed journal are necessary and why evidence is needed, not just conjecture. Again, just because Behe can't figure out how modern pathways evolved doesn't mean they didn't.
Biochemistry is an interesting field in biology in general.
It rarely, if ever, mentions evolution - it is a whole different field. Then try and deal with his argument and not a straw man.