[_ Old Earth _] An interesting thought

[Vaccine]

They invented it. Being fair, they get to say what it is.



The stated governing goal is to make a belief in god a necessary part of science. I use a small "g" because for example, members of the Institute include Jonathan Wells who think Rev. Moon is an improvement on Jesus, and Michael Denton, who is sort of a deist, thinking that once God made the world, He walked away and doesn't intervene at all, even if He has an outcome in mind.



Not part of evolutionary theory, of course, but I don't see God as incapable of making many universes, if He so desired.



The implications of Darwin's are mentioned in the last sentence of The Origin of Species.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.



ID is actually a religious doctrine. It's stated purpose is to bring down materialism, and establish the idea of God. Which aren't bad things; they are good things.

They just aren't science, or even things that science can address. And in arguing that they are, the IDers do much damage to faith. And that is why they are heavily criticized by scientists and people of faith, and particularly so by scientists who are people of faith.

Discovery Institute didn't invent intelligent design theory. Behe's book was from 1996, the wedge document is from 1998.
True people there may have some weird beliefs (rev Moon), but a scientists beliefs doesn't impede them from conducting science.

I agree God is capable of making a multiverse, but the implication there is God is superfluous to it.

I disagree intelligent design theory is anything more or less than a scientific theory.

 

[Barbarian]

Discovery Institute didn't invent intelligent design theory.

I remember those days. It began with Philip Johnson. Creationism had been pretty badly damaged by repeated court decisions, and a new name was needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_intelligent_design

Behe's book was from 1996, the wedge document is from 1998.
True people there may have some weird beliefs (rev Moon), but a scientists beliefs doesn't impede them from conducting science.

Apparently, in Well's case it did. He has written that "Father" gave him a mission to "destroy evolution."

Michael Denton seems to have come through it pretty well. His latest book, Nature's Destiny, seems to be completely free of religious assumptions, outside of his claim that the universe was founded by a designer who set it up to work without any further in put from him.

Michael Behe remains a Roman Catholic, and an evolutionist, who merely thinks God needs to step in now and then to correct something that He couldn't have done naturally.

Philip Johnson seems to be pretty much a standard issue creationist. But Johnson is a lawyer, so he can be excused.

A mixed bag.

I agree God is capable of making a multiverse, but the implication there is God is superfluous to it.

God is superfluous to plumbing, too. But plumbing isn't atheistic.

I disagree intelligent design theory is anything more or less than a scientific theory.

I guess we will disagree on that.

 

[Vaccine]

I remember those days. It began with Philip Johnson. Creationism had been pretty badly damaged by repeated court decisions, and a new name was needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_intelligent_design



Apparently, in Well's case it did. He has written that "Father" gave him a mission to "destroy evolution."

Michael Denton seems to have come through it pretty well. His latest book, Nature's Destiny, seems to be completely free of religious assumptions, outside of his claim that the universe was founded by a designer who set it up to work without any further in put from him.

Michael Behe remains a Roman Catholic, and an evolutionist, who merely thinks God needs to step in now and then to correct something that He couldn't have done naturally.

Philip Johnson seems to be pretty much a standard issue creationist. But Johnson is a lawyer, so he can be excused.

A mixed bag.



God is superfluous to plumbing, too. But plumbing isn't atheistic.



I guess we will disagree on that.

I see what you're getting at, it would be easy to dismiss ID theory if it were Creationism. Creationism is philosophy. ID theory is science. Whenever I see the label intelligent design creationism, as the link to the NCSE, I immediately know they have a weak case to make. The NSCE is like the old preacher with the note 'argument weak, pound fist here'. The Discovery Institute doesn't want it taught in the schools, though. They want it to stand or fall on it's scientific merit.
True Phillip Johnson is using ID theory to further his cause but he didn't invent intelligent design theory. It was scientists like Behe, Meyer, Denton.
Irreducible complexity and specified complexity are scientific claims. God did it is a philosophical one.

 

[Jim Parker]

You just said science has to to with the examination of creation. Should that examination be unassuming? Or assume, prior to any examination, what can and cannot be a conclusion?
If assumptions, any assumptions are made, it isn't a search for truth. It's a search for a predetermined narrative. The scientific method is robust enough process, it doesn't need materialistic assumptions.

That depends on what you mean by assume.
If I observe an phenomenon 1000 times and it always comes out the same way then making the assumption that it will do so the 1000 and first time is a legitimate, scientific assumption based on observation.
If, on the other hand, I make the assumption that the entire process by which the heavens and the earth were formed ending with an earth with the vast array of plants and animals and human beings took six, 24-hour days from beginning to end because the Bible says so, then I am making a scientifically illegitimate assumption because the basis of that assumption is not scientific observation, measurement, and analysis; it is theology.

iakov the fool

 

[Vaccine]

That depends on what you mean by assume.
If I observe an phenomenon 1000 times and it always comes out the same way then making the assumption that it will do so the 1000 and first time is a legitimate, scientific assumption based on observation.

You made an observation, that's all. No assumption, materialistic or otherwise, was necessary. When you say 'scientific assumption based..' you're use of the word is inductive reasoning. There is no issue with assumptions after the fact. It's the assumption what can and connot be found before any observation that materialism has hindered science. The hard problem of consciousness is a good example of how these prior assumptions are a roadblock.

If, on the other hand, I make the assumption that the entire process by which the heavens and the earth were formed ending with an earth with the vast array of plants and animals and human beings took six, 24-hour days from beginning to end because the Bible says so, then I am making a scientifically illegitimate assumption because the basis of that assumption is not scientific observation, measurement, and analysis; it is theology.

iakov the fool

Well than we agree that is scientifically illegitimate assumption, albeit for different reasons. Mine is because that is philosophy, not science.

 

[Barbarian]

I see what you're getting at, it would be easy to dismiss ID theory if it were Creationism. Creationism is philosophy. ID theory is science.

There really isn't any way to put teleological philosophy into science. The belief in a god, even the distant and impersonal god of Michael Denton, is not a testable hypothesis, and therefor not science.

Whenever I see the label intelligent design creationism, as the link to the NCSE, I immediately know they have a weak case to make.

The Dover case really was a "train wreck" (Philip Johnson's term) for ID. The revelation that Of Pandas and People had originally been written as a creationist text, and was modified by changing any reference to "creationists" as "design proponents" was an extremely damaging one leading to the decision of the court that ID is creationism.

The problem is that neither term is well-defined and means different things to different people. While Behe's evolutionary ideas require God to intervene in creation from time to time to make it work the way He wants, Denton's distant teleological agent simply created things to make them work according to His will, and that agent is an impersonal and distant figure.

I agree with Denton that the world was created with an end in mind, and that it takes no further intervention in nature to make it work as intended. However, my God is constantly involved with every aspect of nature, even if His miraculous interventions are to teach us something, not anything He has to do to make it work the way He intends.

So neither Behe nor Denton have it right, in my opinion, although they both have some things right. Johnson, of course, is merely an old-fashioned creationist it the Seventh Day Adventist Ellen White mold.

Science is methodologically materialistic, but not ontologically materialistic. Pretty much like plumbing. Plumbers don't have to consider God and creation in their approach to solving plumbing problems. Neither do scientists have to consider God in their approach to learning about nature.

Nevertheless, both plumbing and science are entirely consistent with God and His creation.

Irreducible complexity and specified complexity are scientific claims.

Irreducible complexity has been shown to evolve naturally. So it's consistent with science. The problem with specified complexity is that no IDer can say for sure if anything is specified complexity unless he's already decided beforehand.

God did it is a philosophical one.

Yep. And a valid statement. Just not something science can do.

 

[Vaccine]

There really isn't any way to put teleological philosophy into science. The belief in a god, even the distant and impersonal god of Michael Denton, is not a testable hypothesis, and therefor not science.



The Dover case really was a "train wreck" (Philip Johnson's term) for ID. The revelation that Of Pandas and People had originally been written as a creationist text, and was modified by changing any reference to "creationists" as "design proponents" was an extremely damaging one leading to the decision of the court that ID is creationism.

The problem is that neither term is well-defined and means different things to different people. While Behe's evolutionary ideas require God to intervene in creation from time to time to make it work the way He wants, Denton's distant teleological agent simply created things to make them work according to His will, and that agent is an impersonal and distant figure.

I agree with Denton that the world was created with an end in mind, and that it takes no further intervention in nature to make it work as intended. However, my God is constantly involved with every aspect of nature, even if His miraculous interventions are to teach us something, not anything He has to do to make it work the way He intends.

So neither Behe nor Denton have it right, in my opinion, although they both have some things right. Johnson, of course, is merely an old-fashioned creationist it the Seventh Day Adventist Ellen White mold.

Science is methodologically materialistic, but not ontologically materialistic. Pretty much like plumbing. Plumbers don't have to consider God and creation in their approach to solving plumbing problems. Neither do scientists have to consider God in their approach to learning about nature.

Nevertheless, both plumbing and science are entirely consistent with God and His creation.



Irreducible complexity has been shown to evolve naturally. So it's consistent with science. The problem with specified complexity is that no IDer can say for sure if anything is specified complexity unless he's already decided beforehand.



Yep. And a valid statement. Just not something science can do.

You do make a lot of good points. God is outside science, the cut n paste discovered in the dover trial, God is constantly involved in nature yet science doosn't have to consider that intheir approach. Though they shouldn't be blind to those effects.
I disagree irreducible complexity has been shown to evolve naturally or that specified complexity can't be determined independently.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm glad to see we're finding some common ground. Which of the three, Johnson, Behe, or Denton,seem to you to have the most sensible thinking on design? And why?

Have you read Design in Nature by Adrian Bejan? He makes a point quite similar to Denton's case, without assuming any intent. Of course, he doesn't rule out intent, either. It's an interesting read, and it was a moment when a lot of things suddenly came together for me, about how the universe could be seen as "pre-loaded" for a purpose, even if it's not necessary to assume teleology to understand how it works. Some IDers use the term "pre-loaded" in this way.

I disagree irreducible complexity has been shown to evolve naturally or that specified complexity can't be determined independently.

Let's take a look at it.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
Michael Behe Darwin's Black Box

So let's take a look at something simple that fits. Take an enzyme that breaks down a particular substance. Let's suppose it has a regulator, a substance that assures that the enzyme appears only in the presence of the substrate. This is useful since it conserves resources for the organism, and such regulators are very common in living things.

By Behe's definition, this system is irreducibly complex, since the system will not function if any one of the three parts are missing.

Assuming you accept this definition and the applicability of the example, could such a system evolve?

We have a hint in the nature of a stone arch. Stone arches are irreducibly complex because without every single stone in place, the arch won't stay up. And you can't put them up one stone at a time.

So how do we put such arches up?

We have to put up scaffolding. The scaffolding is later removed and the irreducibly complex arch then functions. Take even one stone out of it, and...

So is there such a thing as biological scaffolding? What do you think?

Specified complexity is a little more difficult. I would like to consider irreducible complexity first, unless you'd like to go the other way.

 

[Vaccine]

I'm glad to see we're finding some common ground. Which of the three, Johnson, Behe, or Denton,seem to you to have the most sensible thinking on design? And why?

Yes, hese exchanges are enlightening some common ground. I haven't read anything by Johnson. I have read one by Ken Ham, wasn't thrilled. I may have the yec tag but hold to an old universe. Denton's and Bejan's books sound interesting. But I would say Behe is who seems the most sensible. Definitely liked every book by Meyer.

Have you read Design in Nature by Adrian Bejan? He makes a point quite similar to Denton's case, without assuming any intent. Of course, he doesn't rule out intent, either. It's an interesting read, and it was a moment when a lot of things suddenly came together for me, about how the universe could be seen as "pre-loaded" for a purpose, even if it's not necessary to assume teleology to understand how it works. Some IDers use the term "pre-loaded" in this way.

Good point, that makes a lot of sense to me.

Let's take a look at it.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
Michael Behe Darwin's Black Box

So let's take a look at something simple that fits. Take an enzyme that breaks down a particular substance. Let's suppose it has a regulator, a substance that assures that the enzyme appears only in the presence of the substrate. This is useful since it conserves resources for the organism, and such regulators are very common in living things.

By Behe's definition, this system is irreducibly complex, since the system will not function if any one of the three parts are missing.

Assuming you accept this definition and the applicability of the example, could such a system evolve?

Can't ask for a fairer definition of irreducible complexity. Since the system is irreducibly complex I would say it couldn't evolve. Knocking out any of the three parts results in a loss of function and a new defect, something to select against.

We have a hint in the nature of a stone arch. Stone arches are irreducibly complex because without every single stone in place, the arch won't stay up. And you can't put them up one stone at a time.

So how do we put such arches up?

We have to put up scaffolding. The scaffolding is later removed and the irreducibly complex arch then functions. Take even one stone out of it, and...

So is there such a thing as biological scaffolding? What do you think?

Specified complexity is a little more difficult. I would like to consider irreducible complexity first, unless you'd like to go the other way.

The arch is a good example of irreducible complexity. To me, the scaffolding shows an intention or goal. I think if the scaffolding served some other unrelated but useful purpose, it requires forethought to bring several reducibly complex parts together for a new function. To be fair, Behe says this indirect path can't be ruled out. It could have happened like that. It requires more assumptions than necessary for me.

 

[Barbarian]

Suppose a bacterial enzyme serves one purpose, but it's structure happens to have a very slight activity to break down a different substance. And suppose in a particular environment some of those bacteria had mostly that different substance present.

Would natural selection favor random mutations that made the enzyme more active? Keep in mind that the genes for many enzymes are coded for in multiple places on the genome, so that one copy could mutate without the bacterium losing the original function. If so, bacteria would begin to show more ability to utilize the substance.

 

[Vaccine]

Suppose a bacterial enzyme serves one purpose, but it's structure happens to have a very slight activity to break down a different substance. And suppose in a particular environment some of those bacteria had mostly that different substance present.

Would natural selection favor random mutations that made the enzyme more active? Keep in mind that the genes for many enzymes are coded for in multiple places on the genome, so that one copy could mutate without the bacterium losing the original function. If so, bacteria would begin to show more ability to utilize the substance.

I suppose gene duplication with the ability to breakdown a slightly different substance a reasonable scenario. From what I read by Behe, an issue arises with how a duplicate gene is regulated?
Without something regulating the new activity, it would expent more energy than necessary, something to select against.

 

[Barbarian]

suppose gene duplication with the ability to breakdown a slightly different substance a reasonable scenario. From what I read by Behe, an issue arises with how a duplicate gene is regulated?
Without something regulating the new activity, it would expent more energy than necessary, something to select against.

It's a very important issue, since there's a metabolic cost in producing an enzyme. It makes sense only if the substrate is present.

So, is it possible for a new regulator to evolve in response?

Genetics. 1978 Jul; 89(3): 453–465.
Experimental Evolution of a New Enzymatic Function. II. Evolution of Multiple Functions for EBG Enzyme in E. COLI
Barry G. Hall
The evolution of ebgo enzyme of Escherichia coli, an enzyme which is unable to hydrolyze lactose, lactulose, lactobionate, or galactose-arabinoside effectively, has been directed in successive steps so that the evolved enzyme is able to hydrolyze these
galactosides effectively.

I show that in order for a strain of E. coli with a
lac2 deletion to evolve the ability to use
lactobionate as a carbon source, a series of mutations must occur in the ebg genes, and that these mutations must be selected in a particular order. The ordered series of mutations constitutes an obligatory evolutionary pathway for the acquisition of a new function for ebgo
enzyme. A comparison of newly evolved strains with parental strains shows that when ebg enzyme acquires a new function, its old functions often suffer; but that in several cases old functions are either unaffected or are improved. I conclude that divergence of functions catalyzed by an enzyme need not require gene duplication.

Interestingly, the evolution of a new enzyme doesn't have to require gene duplication, according to the results of this investigation.

Geneticsv.76(3); 1974 Mar
Regulation of Newly Evolved Enzymes. I. Selection of a Novel Lactase Regulated by Lactose in ESCHERICHIA COLI
Barry G. Hall and Daniel L. Hartl
Thirty-four lactose-utilizing strains of E. coli were selected from a lac Z deletion strain. In 31 of these, the synthesis of the newly evolved lactase is regulated by lactose. The lactase activity in all the strains is indistinguishable from the ebg+ activity identified by Campbell, Lengyel and Langridge (1973).

So a regulator can evolve for such a system, and has been observed to do so. This is, as Hall suggests, not a very common thing, and perhaps explains why our biochemistry is so much like that of bacteria; we reproduce too slowly and to few individuals to have changed that much biochemically.

Most bacterial genomes are about 75% similar to human genome. As might be expected, there are huge differences between groups of bacteria.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338800/

 

[Jim Parker]

t's the assumption what can and connot be found before any observation that materialism has hindered science.

That is a straw man argument. There is no scientific research done in a vacuum in which there is no previously discovered information on which to base a working hypothesis. Researchers don't just make up stuff.

 

[Jim Parker]

[QUOTE="Vaccine, post: 1282732, member: 5633"....,
God is constantly involved in nature yet science doesn't have to consider that in their approach.[/QUOTE]
It is not that science "doesn't have to consider" God in their research; it is that it is impossible for science to consider God in their research. There is no way to measure or analyze God; He is beyond definition and science is not concerned with anything but the material universe which it can measure and analyze.

To say "God is outside science" is a tautology. Science, by definition, is totally unconcerned with God.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Barbarian]

To say "God is outside science" is a tautology. Science, by definition, is totally unconcerned with God.

By necessity. By the very methodology it uses, the supernatural is out of its sight.

 

[Roro1972]

Scientist are so smart

Leviticus 15:13, "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in RUNNING WATER." God said to wash the infected flesh in RUNNING WATER. Science didn't discover that until two men named Pasteur and Koch in the late 1800s. Doctors were washing their hands in a bowl of water and spreading the germs like wild fire. It wasn't until the invention of the microscope and the science of bacteriology that doctors started washing under RUNNING WATER. Leviticus was written around 1490 B.C. SCIENCE WAS ABOUT 3000 YEARS BEHIND! Isn't it embarrassing how science always lags about 2000 years behind that Amazing Book!

 

[Barbarian]

My view is that Behe has it right about evolution being a fact, and about God remaining involved with His creation. I think he has it wrong in assuming that God has to step in every now and then to make it work.

I think Denton is correct in concluding that the universe was produced for a purpose and that nature works as intended, without miraculous intervention. I think he is wrong in assuming that whatever he thinks the "designer" might be, is removed from the universe and not involved with it.

 

[Barbarian]

Leviticus 15:13, "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in RUNNING WATER." God said to wash the infected flesh in RUNNING WATER. Science didn't discover that until two men named Pasteur and Koch in the late 1800s.

Sumerians around 2000 BC advocated washing a wound and then rinsing with a disinfectant like wine. Hippocrates about 460 BC repeated this. The problem with surgeons before Lister was a later authority, Galen, who wrote that without pus forming, the wound would not heal. Hence, "laudable pus" and the indifference to disinfection.

It wasn't until microbiology showed why the Sumerians, Greeks, and Hebrews focused on disinfection that modern surgeons changed their methods.

The ancient scientists didn't know what we do today, but they were as intelligent as scientists today.

 

[Vaccine]

It is not that science "doesn't have to consider" God in their research; it is that it is impossible for science to consider God in their research. There is no way to measure or analyze God; He is beyond definition and science is not concerned with anything but the material universe which it can measure and analyze.

To say "God is outside science" is a tautology. Science, by definition, is totally unconcerned with God.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

Let's see if we can find some common ground. I think we're essentially saying the same thing.
We can agree God exists but is immeasurable therefore science has nothing positive or negative to say about God.
We can agree miracles happen but aren't repeatable therefore science has nothing positive or negative to say about miracles.
We can agree humans have a soul. This isn't as straightforward because free will is being challenged, but I think we would agree science has nothing positive or negative to say about a soul.

Just curious, would you agree intelligent design theory qualifies as a scientific theory?

 

[Vaccine]

It's a very important issue, since there's a metabolic cost in producing an enzyme. It makes sense only if the substrate is present.

So, is it possible for a new regulator to evolve in response?

Genetics. 1978 Jul; 89(3): 453–465.
Experimental Evolution of a New Enzymatic Function. II. Evolution of Multiple Functions for EBG Enzyme in E. COLI
Barry G. Hall
The evolution of ebgo enzyme of Escherichia coli, an enzyme which is unable to hydrolyze lactose, lactulose, lactobionate, or galactose-arabinoside effectively, has been directed in successive steps so that the evolved enzyme is able to hydrolyze these
galactosides effectively.

I show that in order for a strain of E. coli with a
lac2 deletion to evolve the ability to use
lactobionate as a carbon source, a series of mutations must occur in the ebg genes, and that these mutations must be selected in a particular order. The ordered series of mutations constitutes an obligatory evolutionary pathway for the acquisition of a new function for ebgo
enzyme. A comparison of newly evolved strains with parental strains shows that when ebg enzyme acquires a new function, its old functions often suffer; but that in several cases old functions are either unaffected or are improved. I conclude that divergence of functions catalyzed by an enzyme need not require gene duplication.

Interestingly, the evolution of a new enzyme doesn't have to require gene duplication, according to the results of this investigation.

Geneticsv.76(3); 1974 Mar
Regulation of Newly Evolved Enzymes. I. Selection of a Novel Lactase Regulated by Lactose in ESCHERICHIA COLI
Barry G. Hall and Daniel L. Hartl
Thirty-four lactose-utilizing strains of E. coli were selected from a lac Z deletion strain. In 31 of these, the synthesis of the newly evolved lactase is regulated by lactose. The lactase activity in all the strains is indistinguishable from the ebg+ activity identified by Campbell, Lengyel and Langridge (1973).

So a regulator can evolve for such a system, and has been observed to do so. This is, as Hall suggests, not a very common thing, and perhaps explains why our biochemistry is so much like that of bacteria; we reproduce too slowly and to few individuals to have changed that much biochemically.

Most bacterial genomes are about 75% similar to human genome. As might be expected, there are huge differences between groups of bacteria.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338800/

Well, you made the case a regulator can evolve. Assuming this makes the case scaffolding is possible, the weight of it rests on selecting 4 mutations in sequence and life support (IPTG) while it's being done. Which involves a goal or intention. I don't think a possible indirect pathway to irreducible complexity is a death knell for the theory. An adaptive mutation is complimentary to ID theory. Behe did propose a way to falsify his claims:
"To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven."
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_philosophicalobjectionsresponse.htm