I honestly think that if Michael Behe's thesis were treated fairly, it would prove to be a terrific heuristic device even if it were refuted step by step. It would force a re-thinking of the selection pressure needed for intermediate forms.
However Kenneth Miller and the rest don't present Behe accurately, and thus don't refute him.
Why doesn't Miller get together with Behe over a weekend and say, "Look, I think I can concoct your mousetrap incrementally, but first I have to describe your mousetrap accurately at every step of its assembly. Look, is the way I've stated it flawed? Do you recognize this as your mousetrap?
Otherwise, it's just a kind of Rube Goldberg thing-a-ma-jig that actually can't trap a mouse, but wantsto ...
agreed- that link i posted has the full article link down near the bottom- it’s clear that both miller and the judge weren’t about to give behe and ID a fair trial- The judge claimed that there was no evidence for a ‘positive defense of irreducible complexity’ and claimed there was only a ‘negative presentation against natural evolution’- this was a lie- there was positive evidence for IC presented.
Evolutionist supporters presented the judge’s ruling as a major victory- but it wasn’t- it was a miscarriage of justice- and they knew it but didn’t care- the ruling was all that mattered to them- truth be damned