Please, do some serious research at the molecular level, and don't take my word for it or anyone elses -- let it be through your own effort. All of the FACTS are there today. This is not like relativity, where we test observations to see if they fit the theory. This is KNOWABLE facts that are 100% observable -- TODAY! The tide is turning, and it is ALL because of the study of the cell with today's technology.That reminds me: Kenneth Miller has written a wonderful critique of Behe's favorite icon of irreducible complexity, the flagellum. Briefly:
The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.
Miller's argument is not a rebuttal, it is a typical evolutionist phony argument claiming victory when no such thing has been achieved. Miller again repeats the often refuted argument that the flagellum is just an evolved secretory system. It is not. The secretory system only has some half the genes of the flagellum (and perhaps it too is irreducibly complex!). So what you would need is to have the 20 or so genes in the secretory system evolve - without ever losing functioning - and join with 20 totally new genes in an inextricably complex system to form the flagellum. So no Miller is just trying for headlines, he has not disproved Behe (and BTW the argument of the secretory system is not his originally so he may also be guilty of plagiarism).