Intelligent Design - Irreducible Complexity

Not exactly a code posting, but I just can't believe that one of my favorite science shows - Through the Wormhole - hosted by Morgan Freeman, brought Michael Behe on the "Did God Create Evolution?" episode to present his alternative theory of intelligent design. First of all:  Behe's argument for "Irreducible Complexity" has been invalidated so many times, most recently in the Dover case, and by many other examples. But I'll set out the argument here very simply.

Behe claims that certain biological structures could not be the product of evolutionary ADDITION of changes because SUBTRACTING any of the constituent parts would result in a non-functional result. He often uses the bacterial flagellum as an example - essentially a "outboard motor" that certain bacteria use to propel themselves around.

 The problem with this argument is Behe makes the assumption that all evolutionary changes are ADDITIONS. In fact, many evolutionary changes are SUBTRACTIONS. I emphasize these terms in capital letters because it's so critical to understanding the misleading nature of his argument. It is clear that many "irreducible" structures can be created by the combination of incremental additions AND subtractions. Take the bridge structure. Here is a fully irreducible bridge:

 |===========|
XX           XX

This bridge cannot function if any part is removed. Right? So therefore, according to Behe, it must be designed because removing any part would make this bridge structure "non-functional".

But, in fact, let's assume we started with something like this:

 XX|==|==|==|XX

Some blocks have fallen (been added) between the two banks (XX), This could easily happen if blocks were dropped over the gap. It's a bridge. Not a very elegant bridge, but a bridge nonetheless - and one that could have formed naturally.

Now let's see what happens if a large block is added to this:

 |==========|
XX|==|==|==|XX

We still have a bridge - and again one that could easily have been formed by a natural process.

Now, lets SUBTRACT something (the underlying blocks) and behold the "irreducibly complex" structure of the bridge.

 |==========|
XX          XX

This process of addition AND subtraction happens incrementally in evolution all the time. Behe conveniently ignores this simple fact of incremental change. It is not all addition. It includes subtraction as well. This guy is supposed to be an expert biochemist -yet, he's NEVER seen examples of proteins being formed by addition and subtraction of molecules?!  Right. I think not. The man is shamelessly misleading people. 

So, here is a well-known answer to the so-called irreducible complexity argument. And yet, no mention was made in the Through the Wormhole episode of this, nor of the fact that such evidence was presented in the Dover trial in response to Behe's "theory".  It boggles my mind that Behe is given screen time presenting an argument that is so demonstrably weak.

Now go take a look at these structures and re-consider the Behe "theory" that functional structure must be designed by a "designer"
A "designed" bridge

OK. Off the soapbox now. Back to reality.