EN: Muller Two-Step a Refutation of Behe's Irreducible Complexity?

I want to respond to this part of the article:


While the Muller two-step scenario is a clever idea, for the reasons given above it is highly unlikely that it can account for systems that require the performance of multiple subfunctions in order to work. Our responses to the Muller two-step have been around for a long time; it would be nice if ID critics would recognize them and perhaps even answer them rather than inaccurately proclaiming that their arguments go “unchallenged.”

This seems to be a genuine and persistent point of confusion. The responses offered by this unsigned ENV post, and also by Behe over twenty years ago are what I would call “unresponsive.” They do not actually engage the scientific point that Orr offered, or that Muller is making, and the immense amount of scientific data supporting this mechanism.

So I agree there has been words written, but these words are “unresponsive.”

If there is a legitimate desire from ID scholars to understand why most scientists are unconvinced by this, I encourage them to reach out to us. We’ve tried publicly going back and forth, but that does not seem to be moving towards understanding. Both @NLENTS and I even offered to go too the summer program at DI, but were denied. Perhaps there is a better venue for increasing understanding between us. Maybe some of the rebuttals offered by DI are stronger than we perceive, or may be DI just doesn’t understand how we are all adjudicating the evidence in a different way. Perhaps we might still disagree in the end, but at least we could understand why.

I suppose it is up to DI if they want to engage with us in a way to make sense of this. I have read Behe’s response to Orr’s explanation of Muller’s Two-Step, and found it to have deeply misunderstood the point. He argues successfully against a straw many version of the Two-Step (as does this article), so it leave the objection to his case entirely intact. Until the actual case is engaged, rather than a straw man, it remains a very strong rebuttal of IC. I’m happy to explain why, but let’s find a way to do so were some mutual understanding could increase.