ID claims that it is more rational for the bacterial flagellum to have been designed than evolved. The evidence is presents includes irreducible complexity.that parts can't reduced without destroying function; specified complexity, that the DNA which makes the flagellum work is complex and specified hence no scientific mechanism can account for it; and the inference of design, that the design of a event can be inferred if it meets certain objective criteria.
Now, where is the physical evidence that it evolved?
The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
This is neither evidence or proof. ID has not proved that the flagellum *must* have been designed; even a quick search on google shows that there's lots of ongoing research examining the subject, with lots of possibilities. Have they found a conclusive mechanism for it's creation? No. Is there reason to think it's physically impossible? No.
And that's the basic problem with ID: proving an impossibility is very hard. And this supposed "list of objective design criteria" is anything but objective or rigorous. It always boils down to 'I can't figure it out, so it must be designed'. Feh.
A claim that has been demonstrated to be utterly without scientific merit. Is anyone in the ID movement still claiming IC for the flagellum given that this canard has been pretty well utterly demolished? Is even Behe sticking with the flagellum anymore, or has he retreated strictly to holding the IC line with circumlocutions about the blood clotting cycle?