Why do I get the impression I could make a better case for the work that is being done than either of you?
Or what? Or that proves evolution didn't happen? Until we fill in every gap in the theory, we should assume it's wrong? It's a good thing medical science doesn't work that way.
You omitted the relevant sentence: This is work you will never finish, but it should greatly add to our understanding of cellular mechanisms regardless and it will silence one avenue of criticism *if* you can pull it off.
It's not that Behe is necessarily personally ignorant; it's that he points to what we don't know and insists we can never know it.
That is hardly an invalid point, but it does mean there is a clear path to discredit his argument: do the work.
First of all, notice how you (and Behe) are asking people to prove something did happen that he says couldn't. If he were really interested in doing the work, he'd offer a testable explanation of what he thinks did happen and make some predictions based on it that other people could try and confirm.
I would advise against throwing that "testable explanation" rock, Mr. Glass House. I certainly do not propose a testable natural explanation.
Second, if you want an explanation of how one of his examples could have evolved, look up Ken Miller, as I suggested before, or just Google "irreducible complexity debunked."
Pointing out something similar is not going to cut it -- you are crowing about finding a narrow, shallow spot in the Grand Canyon.
I don't share that impression, so I really have no idea.
I would advise against throwing that "testable explanation" rock, Mr. Glass House.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The theory of evolution certainly makes testable predictions. And a bunch have them have been observed to be fulfilled. That's part of its strength as a theory.
I certainly do not propose a testable natural explanation.
Okay...I'm not sure why you say that as though it's a good thing. Behe doesn't either, which is part of why intelligent design is such a weak theory. He could tell us what evidence an intelligent designer might leave behind and predict where we might find it, so others could help him look for it. But no.
Pointing out something similar is not going to cut it -- you are crowing about finding a narrow, shallow spot in the Grand Canyon.
Now you've totally lost me. You wrote, "take one of [Behe's] examples and show how it evolved (or could have evolved.)" I pointed you to Ken Miller, who's made something of a hobby of doing just that, or many of the results you get if you Google "irreducible complexity debunked." I don't feel like paraphrasing them for you, and I don't understand your Grand Canyon metaphor.