Potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system and the flagellum, which were the three examples Behe used.

We will now consider the purportedly “ positive argument ” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “ purposeful arrangement of parts .” Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose.

Dawkins further commented that it was an argument Darwin himself had anticipated, and that the example of a bacterial flagellum used by Behe had in fact been refuted by Kenneth R. Miller in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

Behe additionally testified that the presence of irreducible complexity in organisms would not rule out the involvement of evolutionary mechanisms in the development of organic life.

Behe asserts that the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function, and that the flagellum " engine " is irreducibly complex as if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.

Intelligent design advocate Michael Behe proposed a development of Paley's watch analogy in which he argued in favour of intelligent design.

Although Behe acknowledged that the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye have been well-explained, he claimed that the complexity of the minute biochemical reactions required at a molecular level for light sensitivity still defies explanation.

Behe states that elucidations of the evolutionary history of various biological features typically assume the existence of certain abilities as their starting point, such as Charles Darwin's example of a cluster of light-sensitive spots evolving into an eye via a series of intermediate steps.

Michael Behe believes that many aspects of life show evidence of design, using the mousetrap in an analogy disputed by others.

In the last chapter of Darwin's Black Box, Behe goes on to explain his view that irreducible complexity is evidence for intelligent design.

The judge in the Dover trial wrote " By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument.

Behe has responded to critics of his clotting cascade arguments by suggesting that homology is evidence for evolution, but not for natural selection.

For example, Kenneth Miller cites the lab work of Barry G. Hall on E. coli, which he asserts is evidence that " Behe is wrong.

* " By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument.

Contrary to Professor Behe ’ s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

In 1996, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture ( CSC ), formerly known as the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, was founded to promote Intelligent design, and entered public discourse with the publication of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, arguing for evidence of Irreducible complexity.

Notably, Behe credits philosopher William Paley for the original concept, not von Bertalanffy, and suggests that his application of the concept to biological systems is entirely original.

Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe ’ s claim for irreducible complexity ..."

For example, one of the clotting factors that Behe listed as a part of the clotting cascade was later found to be absent in whales, demonstrating that it is not essential for a clotting system.

Behe maintains that the complexity of light sensitivity at the molecular level and the minute biochemical reactions required for those first “ simple patches of photoreceptor ” still defies explanation.

Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe ’ s claim for irreducible complexity ..." ( Page 75 )

* "... on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system.

* " We therefore find that Professor Behe ’ s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

" " This argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley " " The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's ' official position ' does not acknowledge that the designer is God.

Among them are leaders of the intelligent design movement and fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of that movement, including Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, William Lane Craig, and Henry F. Schaefer.

Behe is best known for his argument for irreducible complexity, which asserts that some biochemical structures are too complex to be adequately explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore more probably the result of intelligent design.

In March 1992, a symposium at Southern Methodist University in Dallas provided the public debut for a small group that included Phillip Johnson, Steven Meyer, William Dembski, and Michael Behe, initiating the wedge strategy that Johnson claims to have worked out by 1991.

Unlike Paley, Behe only attempts to prove the existence of an intelligent designer, rather than the God of classical theism.

Michael J. Behe ( ; born January 18, 1952 ) is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate.

Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.

The fine-tuned Universe argument is a central premise or presented as given in many of the published works of prominent intelligent design proponents, such as William A. Dembski and Michael Behe.

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution ( 1996, first edition ; 2006, second edition ) is a book written by Michael J. Behe and published by Free Press in which he presents his notion of irreducible complexity and claims that its presence in many biochemical systems indicates therefore that they must be the result of intelligent design rather than evolutionary processes.

Behe later agreed that he had written both and agreed to the similarities when he defended intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.

Behe states that though he did identify assertions that evolution had occurred, he found none that had been supported by experiment or calculation, and concludes the book by offering intelligent design as a solution to irreducible complexity.

In the same trial, Behe eventually testified under oath that " There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred ".

Behe later agreed that they were essentially the same when he defended intelligent design at the Dover Trial.

The fine-tuned universe argument is a central premise or presented as a given in many of the published works of prominent intelligent design proponents, such as William A. Dembski and Michael Behe.

In a talk at the Pew Forum entitled, Larson said " Behe has never developed his arguments for intelligent design in peer-reviewed science articles.

Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God.

Intelligent design proponent Michael Behe contends that the system is an example of irreducible complexity and therefore could not have evolved, an argument which is rejected by scientists as logically and factually flawed.

In 1993, Behe had written a chapter on blood clotting in Of Pandas and People, presenting essentially the same arguments but without the name " irreducible complexity ", which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in Darwin's Black Box.

Behe supports the historically incorrect misrepresentation that Darwin's views on the origin of life were atheistic, when On the Origin of Species repeatedly refers to a Creator in a positive and supportive context as impressing laws on matter.

Though Behe has avoided committing himself to the view that God intervenes directly in nature to create purportedly irreducibly complex structures, Darwin's Black Box briefly speculates that divine intervention might have caused the direct creation of a cell from which all of life evolved, supporting creationist views of miraculous acts of creation, but ironically echoing Darwin's stated " view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one ".

For the 1993 edition, Michael Behe wrote a chapter on blood clotting, presenting arguments which he later presented in very similar terms as " irreducible complexity " in a chapter in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box.

Michael Behe, in his book Darwin's Black Box, suggested the designer might be a time traveling cell biologist.