Very little in science is "conclusive."
Indeed -- then perhaps you should stop making absolute statements such as "The "higher intelligence" evolved---as we can't have done because we contain irreducibly complex biochemical systems", as if you *did* have some sort of conclusive demonstration of the validity of your claim, especially when it turns out that when challenged to provide *any* evidence in favor of your claim, your examples fall flat.
I think Behe has the better of the debate,
Even after your complete inability to respond to the many flaws identified in his argument on this thread? Fascinating.
but there is certainly a debate taking place (contrary to the loud claims of some evolumaniacs).
Oh look, another childish insult -- what a surprise.
But do feel free to support *this* new amazing claim of yours; please point out an example of an "evolumaniac" (definition, please?) who makes a "loud claim" (how loud?) that there is no "debate taking place" on this topic. This should be entertaining.
You're right, I should.
please point out an example of an "evolumaniac" (definition, please?) who makes a "loud claim" (how loud?) that there is no "debate taking place" on this topic.
When you claim that a certain flaw has been established, and cite in support a reference for which Behe has responded to the claimed flaw, you are misrepresenting the status of the debate.