[Thatcherite]

LOL! One could certainly claim such. But you'd be the one who'd have to make and verify the claim. After all, a negative result would be worse for the hypothesis that flagella evolved, than it would be for Behe's hypothesis.

Why would I have to verify the claim? By its very nature it is unverifiable. That is the nature of the problem that ID would introduce into science. To take the opposite case, if the flagellum did appear to evolve how could you discount the proposition that the Designer dunnit? You cannot, because ID is not science. By the very nature of its claims it is unfalsifiable.

[r9etb]

Why would I have to verify the claim? By its very nature it is unverifiable.

Because you're (well, not "you," necessarily) would the only one who would make such a claim in the first place. The "interfering deity" would have to be advanced as an explanation for why a "negative result" does not support Behe's claim.

could you discount the proposition that the Designer dunnit? You cannot, because ID is not science. By the very nature of its claims it is unfalsifiable.

You've got to be somewhat embarrassed by this line of thought. It's generally filed under "grasping at straws."

because ID is not science. By the very nature of its claims it is unfalsifiable.

Try telling that to the biotech guys.