Behe's claim is that flagella are an example of irreducible complexity, and that an intelligent agent is necessary to explain their development. As I noted above, the idea that flagella can occur as a product of design is quite plausible based on current technology and an extrapolation of technological trends. The question has to do with the issue of necessity. If one can demonstrate the evolution of flagella without intelligent agents, Behe's claim of "necessity" in that case would obviously be falsified, and his claim of "irreducible complexity" fails in that case.
If one were unable to demonstrate the evolution of flagella, then it still would not say that Behe was correct, though it would tend to support his claim of "necessity" . However, a result of "didn't evolve" would be of immediate concern to those who claim that flagella evolved. After all, for it to be a scientific theory it's supposed to be testable, right?
How would you know that the powerful and unfathomable Designer hadn't stopped them from appearing when they would otherwise have evolved?
Behe's claim is that flagella are an example of irreducible complexity, and that an intelligent agent is necessary to explain their development.
...and that line of reasoning is fallacious, as I've already pointed out.
Also for reasons I've already pointed out, showing a possible evolutionary origin for any particular system would in no way falsify the "ID postulate".
As I noted above, the idea that flagella can occur as a product of design is quite plausible based on current technology and an extrapolation of technological trends.
No argument here, but that doesn't help Behe's point.
The question has to do with the issue of necessity. If one can demonstrate the evolution of flagella without intelligent agents, Behe's claim of "necessity" in that case would obviously be falsified, and his claim of "irreducible complexity" fails in that case.
The problem here is that his argument of "necessity" is flawed from the *start*, and thus any "disproof" of that argument doesn't falsify "ID" either.
One more time: Evidence *against* evolution is not evidence *for* ID. Conversely, failure of that alleged evidence against evolution does not constitute falsification of ID. Period.
If one were unable to demonstrate the evolution of flagella, then it still would not say that Behe was correct, though it would tend to support his claim of "necessity".
No it wouldn't, and therein lies the whole problem. There is no "necessity" of ID even if one could prove beyond all doubt that the flagella could not have evolved. The reason is that Behe -- like most IDers -- is engaging in a false dichotomy. They falsely presume that there are only two possible explanations: a) evolution, or b) design. And that if one is wrong, the other must perforce be true. This is completely incorrect -- they could *both* be wrong, and some *other* (non-evolutionary *and* non-design) process might have been responsible for the flagella (even if we don't yet know what it might be).
Consequently, any evidence regarding evolution -- for, against, or indifferent -- does *not* constitute evidence for, against, or otherwise about ID. Period. If "ID" wants to approach something like an actual science, they'll have to eventually find actual evidence *for* ID, and determine some way in which ID *itself* could potentially be falsified. They're wasting their time trying to "disprove" evolution or claiming that demonstrating the evolution of anything (includign the flagella) falsifies ID, because it doesn't.
However, a result of "didn't evolve" would be of immediate concern to those who claim that flagella evolved. After all, for it to be a scientific theory it's supposed to be testable, right?
Indeed, this could (depending upon the exact nature of that discovery) be a falsification of at least part of evolutionary theory. But no such test has yet been proposed for ID (or at least no such test that actually holds up under examination).
OK, I agree with that one as far as it goes. :-)