if Behe can provide these sorts of examples, he's obviously done some sort of research and study to draw such a conclusion.
Behe is a tenured professor and research microbiologist at Lehigh University, though his research has tailed off considerably in the last decade.
so why is his study & research not considered science?
He's never published nor even submitted any ID research to any scientific journals. His scientific papers are all in the field of microbiology, but none on ID, and I suspect that while he's thought and written a great deal on ID, he hasn't actually done any research on it. He has written a couple popular press books, Darwin's Black Box and more recently The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.
But I'd be hard pressed to describe how Behe might do ID research. Taking his example of the bacterial flagellum, after he's decided it couldn't possibly have evolved naturally, what next? Are there ways he could ferret out how the designer designed? What methods and tools he might have used to create/modify genes or build the first flagellum? Human designers conduct scores and scores of experiments and build a number of prototypes before hitting upon a final design - should Behe look for experimental predecessors to the bacterial flagellum?
I don't know the answers to these questions, and neither would most legitimate scientists, because there seems no legitimate way to conduct research when the conclusion is decided before any of the questions have been answered, or even asked.
quote: if Behe can provide these sorts of examples, he's obviously done some sort of research and study to draw such a conclusion
But not very much.
Behe's argument essentially adds up to:
1. Systems that only work when completely assembled cannot evolve by the simple addition of parts. (purely theoretical)
2. These systems do not work is part is removed (from other people's research).
3. It is unlikely that they would evolve in any other manner. (pure opinion - and not supported by any research - or even a solid understanding of evolution)
4. There is no current explanation of how this system evolved. (At best looking through other people's research).
5. Therefore it did not evolve.
Because point 3 is weak (and very likely false - decades earlier Mueller, taking a more realistic view of evolution predicted that evolution SHOULD produce "irreducibly complex systems") it cannot be considered a solid scientific argument.
quote: so why is his study & research not considered science?
Aside from deficiencies in his research (which includes very little original research of his own) it's because the whole argument rests on an unsupported personal opinion.
if Behe can provide these sorts of examples, he's obviously done some sort of research and study to draw such a conclusion
Absolutely not. Why would you conclude that? When someone who has the tools and opportunity to publish their research (he is a university professor) chooses to announce a conclusion without publishing, it strongly suggests that objective research was not done. He is making a philosophical argument (argument from ignorance) and has been unable to even describe how actual research into a designer would work.
I think it is clear that Behe's recent articles, i.e. Behe and Snoke, are intended to be relevant to ID. Whether they are and whether they are actually supportive of ID is a question open to debate. Its only theoretical research based on simulations, but it is real research.
Having repeatedly misrepresented Dawkins Weasel program (itself a toy intended only to illustrate cumulative selection) - and having this fact pointed out to him more than once, what does Dembski do when he discovers more evidence that he was wrong ?
Apparently the way to work out how the program works isn't to look at the description of the program, but instead to look at the "edited highlights" of the output presented in the book and jump to the conclusion that Dembski was right. The possibility that Dembski could be wrong is not to be considered.
It includes the beginning of acceptance of common descent from the ID group, premature claims of the destruction of the neo-synthesis of evolution, accusations of Darwinian fascism as a reason no research is being carried out (as well as claims to the 'fact' that they had spent $4,000,000 on research!?).
And lets not forget making an animation of Judge Jones with fart noises. That was important ID work.
quote:Because point 3 is weak (and very likely false - decades earlier Mueller, taking a more realistic view of evolution predicted that evolution SHOULD produce "irreducibly complex systems") it cannot be considered a solid scientific argument.
The article explains Behe's problem as caused by a mistaken view of evolution "as working by the gradual addition of parts," while Müller viewed it as the "gradual modifications of parts."
Of course, neither view is completely correct. Evolution is not just one or the other. Both play a role. Nonetheless, viewing evolution as the "gradual modifications of parts" apparently was sufficient to lead Müller to conclude that evolution would inevitably lead to irreducible complexity.
To add to Percy's reply "Mueller" is an alternative spelling the "e" stands in for the umlaut.
Müller's view of evolution is more realistic because Behe's argument completely ignores the idea that the parts can (and do) change.
Evolution goes with what works now. If a change makes a useful part essential it may spread just through drift - that change isn't detrimental in itself. If the change also has beneficial effects it will spread by natural selection. There is simply no good reason for assuming that the system won't change in ways that make it irreducibly complex.