Behe on organismal evolution

Lets be clear that the ID crowd also have wayts that they could deny that ID has been falsified:1) The ID crowd can always demand more detail. This is precisely the tack taken by Dembski on the flagellum. But why is DETAIL needed ? It is not as if ID offers any detail. Surely all we need to do is refute objections to the possibility of the evolution of a flagellum.2) The ID crowd can always pick out another system. ID can't be falsified unless and until we have fully explained the evolution of practically everything.Irreducibly complex systems can evolve. Behe says so. He admitted as much in Darwin's Black Box. The only ARGUMENT from IC is that in Behe's opinion it is very unlikely that IC systems would evolve. Perhaps one day we'll see a rigourous argument to that effect. But right now any argument from IC rests on Behe's intuition which is far from an adequate basis.

How do you know that we don't have evolutionary explanations for just a few complex systems ? Wouldn't the Krebs cycle count, for instance ?I've heard nothing about these supposed teams of mathematicians and I take any such claim with a large dose of salt. It would be very unusual for the ID movement to be so quiet about a major piece of work that supposedly supports their case.And I think that any fair-minded person who understood what evolution CAN do would expect it to produce IC systems. Behe's argument relies on an assumption of piece-by-piece assembly and that's just wrong.As to your final point ID supposedly allows natural designers - and even a supernatural designer has to implement its designs somehow. There is nothing in principle that keeps ID from producing more detailed explanations than it does. Nor is there any good reason for demanding more and more detail. Not unless there is a strong argument that we should be able to do so if evolution were the explanation.

In your last message you said that we onlyy had to explain a few complex systems. Now you've moved the goal posts quite considerably.
So :1) how many IC systems are there (I'll accept an order-of-magnitude estimate)2) How many have been explained - and I'll need some explanation of why you think it is that number and no more.3) How many have to be explained, and why fewer will not do.Then you can start explaining what you mean by a "large scael" and why you think it hasn't been proven that evolution is capable of acting on it.As for your argument that systems can't come together - well we've got an example where the evidence says it did happen (the Krebs cycle again). And modification of parts is the name of the game in evolution. That's just one of the flaws in relying on Behe's mousetrap analogy as any sort of guide.For the last sentence, if ID's explanation is "God did it" with no further explanation then ID is not science - it's theology and not very good theology at that. And since the ID mvoement won't even admit that ID *is* "God did it" - they're more likely to issue angry denails at the very suggestion - it really isn't a valid defence.

Evolutionary science has never stopped with "evolution did it".After all you've already been pointed to evolutionary explanations of some systems which are more detailed than that. So you know that your insinuation is a complete falsehood.

Yawn, do you have to indulge in these transparent evasions ?So far you've tried to excuse the lack of explanations from ID on the grounds that the ID explanation is "God did it" (which is NOT the official line in the first place).You then try to deal with the other problems I pointed out by trying to insinuate that evolutionary science doesn't offer explanations either - even though you know it isn't true.And now you try to evade THAT with silly games.I see your future - a one way ticket to the Boot Camp

As predicted Message 44Is this one for the prophecy threads :-)