Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. But... ALL the evidence? I doubt that.
OK, let's get specific. Michael Behe (the biochemist, not the theologian) wrote, say, 10 years ago, that he fully expected the scientific literature to comprise countless articles on how organelles like flagella could have evolved over time via minute incremental steps, each step being selected as it conferred a benefit to the cell or organism, as postulated by Darwinian models. He found --- zilch. Nobody was even attempting to show how selection pressure would work to develop new structures like cellular organelles.
(I hope I'm not mis-stating his position. I'm not a biochemist and I can only write as a modestly well-read layperson.)
Since you, with your List-O-Links, have apparently specialized in the crevo polemics here --- and I'm a rank newbie --- could you steer me toward the people who do explain the accumulation of minute modifications which would refute Bhe's famous "mousetrap" argument?
I must emphasize my sincerity in this quest. If Behe is wrong, I would love to see somebody take him apart. But as of now, the insinuation that he's in "serious reality denial" looks more like insult than analysis.
We're here to help:
Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is fatally flawed. Ichneumon's post 35.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified. Major debunking of ID.
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller. Critique of Behe.
|
If you want a really detailed takedown of Behe's thesis, get a copy of Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".
Here is Behe's response to the critics.
http://www.trueorigins.org/behe08.asp