This means that, according to I.D., there is evolution, but it is not sufficient to actually make any novel molecular biological systems.
This means that the according to I.D. mechanism in place that explains changes in living systems (the evolution we can observe and measure every day in the lab) is somehow not sufficient to actually acomplish anything without direct intelligent intervention. This is, of course, complete rubbish, as nylon digesting bacteria and citris digesting e.coli can attest; and as the type II secretory system makes abundantly clear about the flagella.
Thus I.D. posits an “incompetent designer” in my mind, because the system put in place is insufficient to the task at hand.
It is exactly analogous to explaining the insufficiency of gravity to account for the cohesion of the universe with Angels rather than “dark matter”; and then demanding that Physicist give equal time to the “Angel explanation”.
No doubt God has a simple and elegant solution to account for “dark matter”, but “Angels” is not and never will be a scientific explanation.
[[The specific claims of Behe and “irreducible complexity”, so far the totality of the intellectual output from the Discovery Institute (completely discredited I might add,]]
NOPE 0-sorry- Strike one- that’s a bunch of bull- Behe’s IC has NOT been ‘thoroughly discreditted- Not with any REAL SCIENCE-
Try again-
Other than the completely undefined "accomplish anything", this argument has nothing to stand on. Of course, until we understand the entirety of cellular biology (including intracellular genomic networks), we have no idea whether a particular observed result actually "accomplished anything". Until then, it is the principle of spontaneous generation standing against the principle of engineered origins. Spontaneous generation has come down quite a bit since Louis Pasteur though.
Thus I.D. posits an “incompetent designer” in my mind, because the system put in place is insufficient to the task at hand.
So "It can't be God because God wouldn't have done it that way". Do you realize it is even more ridiculous to base a materialist argument on what you believe God wouldn't do than to base a theological argument on what you believe God would do?