Yes that’s a bit overselling it I think. Clearly creationists are very self-interested.
Disregarding your inappropriate use of the term “prove” in a scientific discussion, that has already been done. That hypothesis does not fit the data from comparative genetics at all, hence cannot be rationally maintained.
Has already been done on this very forum, at length, multiple times.
I’ve tried to argue it with you directly, but you ran away from the discussion.
I invite you to go and find spiders, wasps, kangaroos, and crocodiles, in the Cryogenian. Take as much time as you need.
You seem confused about what Behe’s argument was, and what Miller’s response showed.
The concept of irreducible complexity was initially invoked by Behe to argue that it would be impossible for some complex structure to evolve if reduced versions of the structure didn’t have any function. But given that reduced versions of the structure do have function, this shows there really is a pathway through which the structure can evolve and remain functional throughout.
Obviously the fact that some structure can function in different ways even though parts of it are missing doesn’t show it’s “devolving”.