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).
Again, let's deal directly with Behe's hypothesis: that the actions of a designer are a "necessary" ingredient in the development of flagella. That claim is testable, and it's falsifiable -- which is something that is often raised as "the standard" for a scientific theory.
No argument here, but that doesn't help Behe's point.
It helps his point quite a bit more than if it were demonstrably impossible to construct flagella. Feasibility is an excellent way to determine whether a hypothesis is valid in the first place. Indeed, one of the "problems" with ID (if you want to call it a problem) is that design is an inherently plausible hypothesis -- we look at problems through the lens of how we might design a solution. A commonly seen argument against ID has the form, "God would have had to have been stupid to do it this way -- I would have done it this way," which is in large part a confirmation of that plausibility.
The problem here is that his argument of "necessity" is flawed from the *start*
Maybe so -- but again, it's a testable statement. If his claim is flawed, one can perform tests to disprove his claim.
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.
If you could demonstrate that, you'd be left with a need to propose some non-evolutionary means by which it occurred. A highly plausible alternative (based on a relative confidence that humans could do it) would be design.
Likewise, there is no "necessity" of Evolution, even if one can prove beyond all doubt that some things did evolve. The existence of the biotech industry demonstrates this: biotech products are an example that not all things evolved.
They falsely presume that there are only two possible explanations: a) evolution, or b) design.
And you seem to be saying that there's only one possible explanation worth exploring, which is also false. Be that as it may, can you propose some third or fourth possible explanation?
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).
The question is, though: was such a test performed for the hypothesis of evolution? If so, what were the results? If not, why not?