Yea, you hope anyway. Miller wrote an entire book about Behe, Dembski, and Johnson: "Finding Darwin's God". And it is far from vague, it is referenced up to its gills, and you will find the relevant references as to when and where, exactly, Behe's predictions were contradicted BEFORE Behe published.
You continue to attack the man instead of refuting the facts. The fact is that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum has yet to be disproven. Your buddy Miller has tried, including with his recent plagiarism about the secretory system which was discussed on these threads over a year ago. It's an old story which he is telling and not giving credit to the original author. Of course that theory of the secretory system itself was discredited as a refutation of Behe's assertion that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex almost as soon as it was published. However, evolutionists having nothing possible to refute irreducible complexity, keep recycling the same nonsense over and over long after it has been shown to be false. Ken Miller is very good at that and while he may have a scientific PHD, he has never accomplished anything valuable in the realm of science himself. He is just a popularizer of evolution, not a real scientist. If he were a real scientist he would not have published such retreaded nonsense from a internet blog of all places!
YOu continue to substitute fantasy for facts anyone could verify in a library in a few minutes. Ken Miller is pre-eminent in biology. We don't let steet people write our principle college biology textbooks.
The fact is that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum has yet to be disproven.
And, as usual, you can't even get the question right, much less the answer. It is irreducible complexity that needs to be proven. There is no proof, just Behein speculation, that natural causes of a form we have not yet fathomed produced flagellum.
Your buddy Miller has tried, including with his recent plagiarism about the secretory system which was discussed on these threads over a year ago. It's an old story which he is telling and not giving credit to the original author.
Look, bluehead, he cites a paper that demonstrates a possible naturalistic pathway to flagellum. That does NOT satisfy the definition of plagerism; there is no "refutation" to which you allude possible, since only possibility was offered by the paper in question; and even if it were possible to provide such a disproof, it STILL would not make your case, since to proof irreducible complexity, you'd have to close off every possible door of intermediate development leading to flagellum, and that ain't been done, cause it would be an infinite task.
Even for you, this is remarkably obtuse.
Of course that theory of the secretory system itself was discredited as a refutation of Behe's assertion that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex almost as soon as it was published.
Yea right. Kindly supply the cite so that I can read it.
However, evolutionists having nothing possible to refute irreducible complexity, keep recycling the same nonsense over and over long after it has been shown to be false. Ken Miller is very good at that and while he may have a scientific PHD, he has never accomplished anything valuable in the realm of science himself. He is just a popularizer of evolution, not a real scientist. If he were a real scientist he would not have published such retreaded nonsense from a internet blog of all places!
Keep it up, maybe you'll open your mouth so wide, you can get both feet in up to your neck and disappear. Why don't you spend a minute looking at Ken Miller's biography before you take such delusional fliers?