The problem we all have is the dishonest equivocation in the ID argument that all motors are designed. I have no problems calling anything a motor as long as the IDers make it clear they understand motor does not equal designed.
I’m pretty sure I made the same point back when this flagellum nonsense resurfaced days ago.
ETA: Here it is in a reply to SCD on the other thread
@Timothy_Horton Right, I get it. @T_aquaticus mentioned a similar concern. I’m totally sympathetic and have also said that it is a mistake to call something a motor and then conclude that it had to have been designed.
Here’s my point, for you and everyone else on your side. Calling it a motor is not wrong, unless, like @swamidass says, you say that it is exactly like a human-made electric motor. No one says that. No one believes that either. So it simply isn’t worth getting upset about a person referring to the bacterial flagellum as a motor. Because, as we’ve all agreed, we’re referring to it as a motor because the purpose it serves is the same as the motor with which we’re all familiar.
Now, go on and insist that anyone who says that bacterial flagellar motor = intelligent designer to prove it. The burden of proof is on them.
I’ve not read the entire thread yet and so someone else probably already addressed this—but I’ve always assumed that if the “bacterial flagellum-motor” changes directions more quickly, it is largely a matter of scaling. That is, the tiny mass involved would surely mean that it would take very little energy to overcome the inertia of the angular momentum. Yet, I am NOT a physicist and I’ve never tried to verify my thinking with a qualified expert. Can someone tell me if I’m thinking in the right direction?
I think you posted some great questions, Michael.
I think that’s a great question and I do not know the answer either. I have wondered about the efficiency, speed and the ability to change directions. Mind-boggling what it can do. It would be interesting to know if the lower mass leading to less inertia on that scale would allow the direction change. But one would think that the torque is similarly scaled, too. Maybe @dga471 could help? At any rate, it is a very interesting mechanism and easy to see why so many are interested in it!
Dang, I’m crushed Neil. (Well, a little bit.) You really think it is lying to refer to it as a “motor”? Even in light of this?
But otherwise, I agree completely about it being pointless. It’s really a non-issue. The issue is whether or not it, or any other thing, was designed or evolved.
He said call it a TIE, not a lie.
I know, I have those old guy eyes too. 
Flagella are pretty nifty.™
We can all agree on that.
(I once thought about naming a child Flagella, if I ever had a daughter. Fortunately for that child’s sake, I had no daughters.)
You’re too sweet. I was not making any argument for design, if you will look. I was merely making an argument for calling a motor a motor. I am not being disingenuous, and your accusation is… false. Thoroughly.
And I was referring to Creationists who equivocate over definitions. You seem to have this poor persecuted martyr complex, that or a guilty conscience.
@nwrickert Oh, man… guilty as charged. Thanks Tim.… If you hadn’t bolded the word, I would have misunderstood it once again! Thanks… so sorry Neil. Carry on. You’re still as logical and intelligent as I assumed you would be. My bad. 
I think we can call this one over now. Anyone who is even open to the idea of design should now understand why those who are not open to it are sensitive to the use of the word “motor” to describe the bacterial flagellum. Probably for good reason, too. If we agree to use it to describe the part and how it operates, but not make the illogical assumption that motor = motor maker, we should be good!
Now, we (hopefully) can get on to other bigger and better things! 
Hahahaha… a motto to live by for sure!!
Then you would have been known as that former professor and minister who was killed in his sleep by his very angry daughter. And some think that there is no God!!!
It can be wrong without that implying that you are lying. And whether it is wrong depends somewhat on the context such as the strictness with which people are using terminology. In this thread, there isn’t much consensus on whether “motor” is an appropriate term.
It’s a disagreement about meaning rather than a disagreement about facts. At times, sorting out such a disagreement can be important. But this does not appear to be one of those times.
Agreed. Sorry for the confusion. I was not being serious by I did misread “tie” as “lie”… Thanks for explaining.
I think you will only confuse people if you start bringing the eukaryote flagellum into a discussion of the eubacterial flagellum.
I suggest that it may be a matter of friction and viscosity. Bacteria don’t coast. If the flagellum stops, the bacterium stops instantly because water resistance is more important at small scales. Similarly, if the flagellum stops being driven, it will stop very quickly. The water overcomes the filament’s inertia of motion, bringing it to a halt, ready to be pushed in the opposite direction.
If my family were a lot of biomolecular engineers, and from an early age I had been exposed to the workings of “the molecular world”, I might just intuit design.
The movement of a eukaryote flagellum could maybe be compared to piezoelectric oscillatory motion rather than a rotary motor.
Really? For starters, the bacterial flagellum is not a rotary motor. Didn’t you know?
