The issue Behe raises is whether natural selection or some other natural cause can produce irreducibly complex molecular machines
Behe is not interested in other natural causes. At least he puts forward no theories on the matter. Neither does anyone else from the ID camp. Instead they put forward a single comprehensive answer which explains nothing: It was designed that way.
Do you know some names of prominent evolutionists who have publicly said they think evolution might have been used as a divine tool, that is guided?
I stated that most scientists do not equate theistic evolution with creationism. Creationism claims that species are distinct "kinds". Evolution claims they are all related by a common ancestor. The entire creationist/evolution confrontation in the USA is about common descent. The rest does not matter.
I agree and see common descent as evidence that the odds against life arising by solely natural means are overwhelming.
I'm not following you here. Are you saving that common descent means that life originated just once, hence is rare, therefore its origin must have been a special creation?
Explains the irreducibly complex molecular machines within living things. Things with multiple parts which all must be present at once for the thing to work.
Behe's entire theory of IC is bogus for a simple fact: he chose to ignore functional co-option and deletion. A 3-leg stool is IC, but a 4-leg one is not. Behe would claim a 3-leg stool could not evolve, but a 4-leg one could. Deletion can make a 3-leg stool from a 4-leg one, so it can in fact evolve. Functional co-option and deletion are well known in evolutionary biology, so why Behe chose to ignore them and produce a bogus theory is beyond me.
IMO, Behe should instead have claimed that we would find some unique gene sequence which is not evolveable by applying any of the currently known gene production methods. He could then claim to have a signature of some designed event. Instead he chose to focus on cellular structures, all of which are built be gene control. His timing was most unfortunate, as genetic sequencing, is now pretty cheap. So all of the genetic control of cellular development will be worked out, and the responsible genes will be cross correlated with similar genes within a species and also across species. This will result in a pretty good understanding of the evolutionary development of the genes themselves. Unless you can show that the gene is IC, there is no point in arguing about the final structure. FWIW, I don't expect to find any unique such genes. They will all have roots in other genes using the well know duplication, transposition, inversion, deletion, insertion and point mutation processes that we see at work all the time. If not, important new theories will be needed, and perhaps ID will find a place at the table yet. |
