Nope. You said that irreducible complexity was not a scientific fact, I corrected your mistatement.
You have a table of all the possible configurations of off-by-one-molecule machines that fail to wiggle a flagellums' tail, however efficiently? No?
You are asking your opponents to prove a negative. You are asking for the impossible and thus claiming victory. Our side, has given postive proof of its assertions, your side, the evolutionist/materialist side has only given rhetoric. The closest they have come to a plausible scientific explanation is the secretory system (which is likely also ID). But that only has half as many genes as the flagellum and leaves the problem unsolved.
Or perhaps you have the proof that demonstrates that genetic machinery can't be built by a process similar to the way the immune system builds phagocytic machines out of a machine shop of generalized parts? Talk about the dog eating the homework.
Yes that system is also very interesting and in my view probably had to be intelligently designed also. Just because something exists does not mean that it exists due to evolution. How does the sytem know what parts to use? This requires decision making, thought and memory. Do rocks have memories? Does carbon or any other chemical have memories? With the immune system you also have a system which is specifically designed for a certain purpose.
Yes that system is also very interesting and in my view probably had to be intelligently designed also.
Ah, so now the argument is that something you have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever had to have been irreducibly complex. I guess we know what imaginary class of being "irreducibly complex" belongs to now.
Just because something exists does not mean that it exists due to evolution.
Nor does it mean it doesn't exist due to evolution.
How does the sytem know what parts to use?
How does genetic heritage know what color to make eyes? It probably experiments, and the successful experiments survive a little better than the unsuccessful. Just because you lack DNA doesn't mean you can't use the processes of regeneration and selection.
You are asking your opponents to prove a negative. You are asking for the impossible and thus claiming victory
Oh, you mean asking Behe if he even looked for possible alternative flagellum along a spectrum of normal genetic variation before making his preposterously undemonstratable claim of irreducible complexity? What a villain I am, to expect someone to put scientific effort into verifying a scientific thesis.