You just get blown away by these things, they are just so amazingly complicated. Therefore; design." You've heard it all now — that's the root of their argument.Most evolutionary biologists do not consider it science by any stretch of the imagination because the idea relies on personal incredulity and unwarranted assumptions.So now the question arises: if there are several different mutations under consideration, do we multiply all the probabilities together, and then compare the probability to the number of opportunities, or do we compare each probability to the number of opportunities, and then multiply the adjusted probabilities together?
", then it becomes clear that the question is badly formed, especially when keeping in mind that many species manage to survive with significantly less-advanced eyes.
The argument is no more advanced or "evolved" than William Paley's "Watch Argument" which stated that as a watch looked created, it must have a creator.
Essentially, Behe is stating "because I can't see a natural explanation, Goddidit" — this ignores any possibility that a naturalistic explanation or evolutionary pathway will later be discovered.
Behe also has defined and redefined irreducible complexity: In response to these demonstrations however, IDC proponents belatedly "reinterpret" their initial claims in order to lift them out of the critic's reach.
A first strategy to this end consists in shifting the burden of proof from plausible evolutionary pathways to the actual evolutionary story, maintaining that the broad outlines of a plausible evolutionary account amounts to nothing more than Darwinian wishful thinking and speculation.