Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity

So you start out with large rocks.
Then they become round (so they can roll more often).
Then you prop it up in the air with something, which means the previous phase of your "evolving mousetrap" wasn't really necessary, because the rock is standing propped up in the air all day waiting for the mice to come past.
Oops, the mouse detection system doesn't come part & parcel with thing propping it in the air, so you have a bunch of round rocks standing around propped up in the air and doing nothing.
At least the ones rolling around still kill mice occationally, so they get to live happily ever after.
You end up with nothing close to a mousetrap and nothing that is really effective either.Adding the prop without the detector was actually detremental to the success of the design, although it was a step in the right direction. It's the same with the IC systems that Behe talks about. If you only have half the components assembled, the system will sit there and be very complicated, but utterly useless. I would like to hear an explanation on how a FLAGELLUM got put together in an evolutionary way. If such an explanation can't be given by an intelligent human being who knows what the outcome should be, how can it be that random and unguided events could "invent" such an efficient motor?

Whether humans or aliens were responsible for constructing Stonehenge - it implies that intelligence was involved either way, so your analogy has nothing to do with what Behe is saying about IC systems.Why do we assume that Stonehenge was constructed by intelligent beings? Why do we assume intelligence to be involved whenever we see letters painted on a wall or carved into a cave thousands of years ago? Because the random forces of nature very seldom (if ever) produce anything with a high information content.Behe focusses on IC systems, but there are numerous other signs of design in the universe - from the exactness of the physical constants in the universe and the priviledged location of the earth in our universe to the complexity of molecular machines and the existence of biological information to Cambrian explosion and our own consciousness itself.If you make a propper study of any one of these fields you will run into great difficulties trying to explain it in evolutionary terms, so my question is this: Why is evolution accepted so widely if there are no concrete evidence to support it all the way from the Big Bang to the universe as we see it today? Evolutionists have to make excuses for everything from the lack of evidence in the fossil record to the massive odds against the unaided development of one single living cell, saying that more research will give the answers.But that is what Darwin said about the fossil record - that later findings might support his theory. And today we DO have a lot more fossils to our disposal, but it still lacks what Darwin was hoping for...