But he does not say what you have claimed he says, which is:
And you’ve already admitted it:
Nor does he say that “many of those proteins had to emerge all at once.”
You’re basically redefining “irreducibly complex” to mean something that must poof into existence all at once, and that’s simply absurd on its face, and a misrepresentation of Behe.
Show me quotes where Behe agrees that the flagellum could evolve step by step.
Behe literally said that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved in a stepwise manner because of the principle of irreducible complexity. I think that it is fair to assume that he means, therefore, that it was “created” or that it would have had to have evolved in place. Those are basically the two options, right?
Quote-mining is misrepresentation. I’ve already shown that what @bjmiller actually said is that there is a correspondence.
It gets the entire thread off on the wrong foot. Why not assert instead that there is no correspondence between the bacterial flagellar motor and a rotary motor. That would address what he actually wrote.
I never claimed that Behe ever said such a thing, so i don’t have any burden to show that he did. You know what an argument from ignorance is, right? That’s basically what you are resorting to now. If I can’t prove to you that Behe ever said “x” then you can conclude what from that?
If you can’t show us what Behe’s views are, then how can you say that I am misrepresenting them? Behe does not believe these proteins came about through natural processes, and Behe has been clear that he believes God is the designer. It is pretty clear that he thinks these proteins came about through supernatural means outside of natural processes.
LOL! Your strenuous efforts to “win” by word-smithing get funnier all the time Mung. No more effective but funnier none the less.
In this case, though, we actually worked through the process and, seemingly, all agreed that one could refer to the bacterial flagellum as a motor. Using that term would be an analogy based partly upon the appearance and partly upon the function. But that in agreeing to use that term, we would not then leverage its use to imply that motor = designer. So, you are right in saying that it got off on the wrong foot. But through the discussion (above) we learned why there was such a hesitance to agree to use that term.
Which is why I do not quote mine. I also disagree with the correspondence he sees.
@bjmiller can clarify for himself, and I’m not really concerned with your interpretation of him or me. You are arfterall merely an anonymous arguer in the internet 
. Please stay out of the way so that @bjmiller can clarify as required.
Except I do not agree a flagellum works like a human designed rotary motor. To think it does misunderstands some important things about how it works.
. . .
I thought, however, we had agreed that it was a motor. Of course it does not work like a human designed motor, but it does have all the same essential features.
I do not agree it has the same essential features. Quite the opposite. They are essentially different.
As I have pointed out several times the analogy is very weak. There are far more differences that similarities, and I’m doubtful that most ID people making this argument even know what the differences are, let alone have thought through what they mean for their argument.
We’ve been throught this. It does have a rotor/shaft. It has bearings/bushings. It has a stator. It has a power source. It turns. No, it does not have special alloys in its bearings, etc.
How is that essentially different?
So I don’t with the similarities you laid out, and I’m still waiting for you to list out the important differences.
They are essentially the same as a motors providing propulsion.
This is the most superficial of similarities. Gravity provides propulsion too.
I’ve already started: materials.
Keep going. We can learn a lot from this activity.