So what are you contending? That ID proponents can name any molecular system and demand that those who support natural evolution not only show hypothetical pathways but demonstrate those pathways through physical experimentation? Where would this end? And how do you propose to discount the argument that the Designer may be intervening in the petri-dish?
Yes! It is the ones who support natural evolution who make the claim that such molecular systems evolved in the past by numerous, step by step modifications of precursors. As that is essentially a historical claim, at least reconstructions of the actual pathways and assemblies would be warranted, supported by detailed, testable data, and failing that, at least detailed, testable alternatives. If Behe has performed no other service, at least he has provoked some biologists to try to provide a detailed Darwinian accounting of these molecular systems. Darwinists should be be glad for such challenges that provide even more opportunity to demonstrate scientifically the truth of their hypotheses, but I don't see much evidence that many of them are. Quite the contrary.
Where would this end?
When does science and the quest for knowledge end?
And how do you propose to discount the argument that the Designer may be intervening in the petri-dish?
What is that argument?
Cordially,