The evolution of the flagella is much better understood now, but was even understood before Behe.
First, let me look at BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s views:
The transcript is available if you wish to read it.
In the Judges words:
We can see that ID is not scientific, and that Behe uses a very strange definition of science, but to look at the evolution of the flagella we can use the same transcript
More from the transcript (Dr MillerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s testimony):
Which basically shows that the flagella is not irreducibly complex.
You really buy this complete twisting of a simple concept--irreducible complexity?
You think that this judge and these lawyers determine the demarcation of science. They are law people. They do it because they can and that's it. The judge believes because ID and creationism import implication to a creator, they are the same thing.
Sorry guys, discussing the possibility of design in life is not the same thing as as Jehovah God which sent his Son Christ to die for our sins, so that we might live in Him. That this God sent a flood which destroyed the earth.
ID and creationism are not the same thing. One goes much farther than the other. ID stops at the suggestion or implication of design. Creationism goes to the interpretation of flood geology. ID includes theistic evolutionists. Creationism only allows OEC and YEC. Though creationism includes and agrees with most tenants of ID, ID can not include all the tenants of creationism. No matter what some lawyer argues.
If you animate the slide, you'll see that Dr. Behe's prediction is that the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function. Therefore, we ought to be able to take the bacterial flagellum, for example, break its parts down, and discover that none of the parts are good for anything except when we're all assembled in a flagellum.
I'm not trying to be mean, but how utterly stupid! No. How much is this twisting a simple concept? Just like Miller, when answering Behe's mousetrap, takes a partially disassembled mousetrap and sticks it on his tie, confidently asserting it is a tie clasp. But what he fails to notice is that intelligence (even Miller has some) has designated the mousetrap as such, and manipulated it into a place which has relevant function.
NUMBER 1-- BEHE NEVER SAID OR SUGGESTED SUCH FOOLISHNESS! Show me one quote where he said, "...the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function." Or one quote that could be interpreted as such. This is intentional straw man argument.
As a molecular biologist with any kind of brain at all, he knows that the bodies of different organisms are made up of similar proteins. This is what Miller is getting at --that his suggested pump precursor malarkey is the forerunner of the flagellum.
Well, wake up people. It's a pump--which is what? A machine. It's a flagellum with all the principles of an electric motor. Elementary! That is until you introduce denial and stupidity!!!!! Sorry guys--this kind of hooliganism upsets me to the nth extent!
I have worked on a few cars in my life. I've seen the inside of an altenator (electric motor) and I've seen the the inside of a fuel pump. I see alot of differences even though they are made of similar materials.
Need I say more. This is what Miller does. Tries to feed us his marsh skum and tell us it's filet mignon. Sorry--you don't get a tip Mr. Miller--in fact I'm leaving the restaurant!