Is Darwinism mathematically impossible?

OK - what do you think I should read to counter the ideas that Behe has come up with?

David

While I appreciate Michael Behe's ideas, they largely represent an appeal to the apparent improbability of events over vast timescales. However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Irreducible complexity serves as a negative argument against evolution rather than proof of design.

Michael Behe has cited the bacterial flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity since his early books, but recent research on this structure has demonstrated that some of its proteins are similar to those found in simpler, non-motile systems like the Type III secretion system. This suggests that parts of the flagellum could have evolved from these simpler precursors. Furthermore, various components of the flagellum have been shown to perform multiple functions, supporting the concept of its gradual evolutionary assembly. Contrary to the notion of irreducible complexity, certain parts of the flagellum remain functional when removed, suggesting that these components can be useful in different biological contexts. This evidence supports the possibility of complex structures evolving through the repurposing of existing parts for new functions.

There are Christian biologists who disagree with Michael Behe but still reject Darwinism. One such biologist is Dr. Joshua Swamidass, who has also published books on the subject. He writes:

Through my journey, even now, Behe always struck me as sincere, well-meaning, and brave. On Irreducible Complexity, he had a good idea. Like many good ideas, it did not pan out (at least in my assessment). Every scientist has ideas that do not past muster. At least Behe has been courageous enough bring his ideas forward. I respect him for this courage immensely. There is no shame in this.

https://peacefulscience.org/articles/agree-behe/