>>>Actually, Behe's contribution pretty much boils down to coming up with a definition for "irreducible complexity" that doesn't really apply to the natural world and then claiming that because the Theory of Evolution didn't jibe with his arbitrary and capricious definition, it was clearly the Theory of Evolution that is wrong.<<<
It would be helpful if evolutionists could explain irreducible complexity so we could put this matter to rest; or stop the book-burning so we could investigate further.
Sure. It's a fantasy cooked up by Michael Behe to sell books to suckers.
What do I win for the first correct answer?
"It would be helpful if evolutionists could explain irreducible complexity so we could put this matter to rest; or stop the book-burning so we could investigate further."
Actually, it would be far more helpful if the proponents of the notion of "irreducible complexity" could explain what the heck they mean by the term. Since they cannot explain what "irreducible complexity" is, any theory that depends on the concept is automatically non-falsifiable and thus untestable.
Since I'm talking about Behe, I think Behe's definition is sufficient for the discussion, and it is in particular Behe's definition I have criticized. How various unspecified "evolutionists" define IC is not particulate germane to that criticism.
Behe's definition:
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Now, one's initial read of that would lead one to believe that if you could remove a part of a system, it wouldn't be IC if it still functioned in some capacity, even if it wasn't in the same capacity as prior to the removal. However, Behe could not mean that, for he also uses this mouse trap illustration as an example of IC:
Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it...
He's clearly implying that if the system loses its original functionality (catching mice) with the loss of a part, it is IC. This reading is buttressed in fact by one of his examples of IC in the natural world: swimming systems.
Since Behe uses the argument of swimming systems as one of his cases for IC, and since as a biochemist who has made this feature his star attraction, he is no doubt aware of the bacterial flagellum and type three secretion systems, and since a convincing evolutionary pathway can be made for the evolution of the flagellum from the TTSS, Behe must (in concert with his mouse trap example) be suggesting that any system where removal of a piece cause the original function to cease is IC. He must mean this, otherwise he wouldn't have used an example which quite clearly is "reducibly complex" in the sense that you can remove a part and the structure is still functional albeit in another capacity. Nor would he have used his mousetrap analogy unless he is just guilty of a poor analogy.
The problem is, if you use the more restrictive interpretation of IC, it doesn't map to nature, since in nature structures are found to co opt other structures for different functions.
Of course, it is perfectly legitimate to say no, that's not the reading Behe intended -- he really meant that it's only IC if removal of any part makes it completely nonfunctional. That argument is itself fallacious for another reason that I'll not elaborate on here (it ignores the possibility that the system in its current form was arrived at through a subtractive process and assumes all systems are arrived at through purely additive pathways). However, if you do opt for this reading, you are still left with the mystery of why he used a) a natural-world example that doesn't fit that definition and b) a contrived example (the mousetrap) that went out of its way to suggest that original functionality was the intended reading.
IC = moving the goalposts.