[DallasMike]

Sorry, but those really aren't very good articles. The latter is a classic bait and switch. The crux of thd article is this sentence, which has no bearing at all on the notion of irreducible complexity:

However, if the flagellum contains within it a smaller functional set of components like the TTSS, then the flagellum itself cannot be irreducibly complex – by definition. Since we now know that this is indeed the case, it is obviously true that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

Miller is just playing word games.

I'm too busy with other responsibilities and interests to continue this discussion, but I'll say what I've said before: my problems with the current theories of evolution aren't that it conflicts with religion, but that it so often conflicts with good science.

[Ichneumon]

[However, if the flagellum contains within it a smaller functional set of components like the TTSS, then the flagellum itself cannot be irreducibly complex – by definition. Since we now know that this is indeed the case, it is obviously true that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.]

Miller is just playing word games.

Utter horse manure. Miller is pointing out that by BEHE'S OWN DEFINITION of "irreducible complexity", the flagellum DOES NOT QUALIFY.

Period.

That's not a "word game", that's demonstrating that Behe's "example" of IC doesn't Behe's claim for it.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm too busy with other responsibilities and interests to continue this discussion, but I'll say what I've said before: my problems with the current theories of evolution aren't that it conflicts with religion, but that it so often conflicts with good science.

Perhaps when your awesome responsibilities permit, you'll drop back in and detail for us how the theory of evolution "so often conflicts with good science."

[Ichneumon]

my problems with the current theories of evolution aren't that it conflicts with religion, but that it so often conflicts with good science.

Feel free to back up this empty claim with an concrete example, if you think you can, so that we can determine whether you actually know what you're talking about.

[Rudder]

...my problems with the current theories of evolution aren't that it conflicts with religion, but that it so often conflicts with good science.

Easy for you to say...but, if one reads carefully what you said...it makes no sense. How does evolution conflict with good science? How do trombones conflict with mollusks? We could go on...

[Tribune7]

And according to the theory of evolution the TTSS came long AFTER the flagellum.