<<Indeed, let the tremors begin!!!>>
Yes, this is going to be exciting. I'm looking forward to the debates to come.
Just some quick responses here:
<<1) The entire universe, as the product of God's creative and governing
hand, is designed, even when we can account for its various features
with scientific explanations.>>
The controversial point is the last. We cannot yet, at least according to the
lack of scientific articles on the subject, "account" for irreducible
complexity in naturalistic terms.
<<2) Hemoglobin, the oxygen transporting
protein of the blood, is a complex molecular machine. Although
hemoglobin is a fairly simple system compared to a cilium, I believe
that comparative studies of hemoglobin at the protein and gene level
have suggested to us how such molecular machines might come about. >>
This dovetails with the above. What testable proof to we have on this?
Published papers, peer review, etc.? According to DBB, none. That is
significant.
<< 3) The relatively new science of complexity theory may provide a
non-Darwinian solution to this problem. A property of complex systems
far from thermodynamic equilibrium is that order and new properties
arise spontaneously.>>
Behe addresses this on pp. 189 - 192 of DBB.
<<4) Premature appeal to special divine activity
to explain the world around us damages the Christian theistic
apologetic.>>
This is a philosophical point, and a good one. The key words are "premature"
and "damage," IMO. At what point do we finally acknowledge that naturalism has
hit a wall? For some, that answer is never, and that to me is more damaging
overall than any "premature" judgment.
As to damage to apologetics, I don't know. That's one of those secondary
questions one really can't be certain about. That being so, I think we have to
go where the evidence seems to be leading, and do our best from there.
Jim