Most convincing evidence for creation theory

Behe's argument does appear at first glance to be a good one. That makes it better than most. However as far as being a "good" argument there are two views on that. One is from the perspective we are taking here: does it support creationism and the other is the real view of the ID'ers: does it fool the right people.As for the first:
1)It fails because (as noted above) it is not positive evidence for creationism.
2)It fails because it is an argument from incredulity. It doesn't prove that IC systems can't evolve it just can't imagine how.
3) If fails because it starts off by not arguing against the evolutionary model. It commences with a strawman by saying that the model demands single, individual steps and disallowing pre-adaptation (ie. the analogy to scaffolding).
4) Finally it has failed totally since IC systems have been show to be evolvable.For the second:
1) It works because it sounds very scientific.
2) It works because it talks about the history of cellular processes that don't fossilize and require detailed examination to determine a possible pathway.
3) It works because the strawman it uses is about what it's audience thinks evolution is.
4) It works because it is what one of it's major audience wants to hear.
5) It appeared to work because it looked like it might fool the courts. Too bad about that one.

We have, in recent decades, found two methods for producing an apparently designed object:1) The Old Fashioned Way.
We apply intelligence to understanding the problem. We look far and wide to see what alternative solutions there maybe. We consider what we are attempting to solve. We take into account the costs and limitations we are operating under. We strive for "elegance" in the design -- which usually means simplicity and comprehensibility.This can be likened to someone solving a puzzle by examining the picture on the box, considering the shape and pattern on a piece in hand and looking over the partially completed picture to find likely spots to place it. This is most satisfying when we triumphantly put a piece in directly.Let's call this Intelligent Design; since we carefully make us of our intelligence to derive it.2) The New Fangled Way.
We construct an environment where evolutionary processes can be applied to the problem at hand. We attempt to not "second guess" the possible solutions. We simply allow the maximum of trail and error. We allow the process to run without guidance or input other than the selection part of the evolutionary paradigm.This maybe likened to doing a jigsaw puzzle by randomly grabbing a piece and trying it in all available spots.Let's call this "Unintelligent Design" since we produce a design but we do not apply any intelligence in the actual process.Now let's look at the outcome of the two processes:
1) Intelligent Design
Some degree of elegance is achieved (mostly ).
The solutions will contain components that have been used in all sorts of other places.2) Unintelligent Design
The solutions can be of arbitrary complexity.
The solutions are constrained by where the process started.Now let's look at the world of living things. Which do the "designs" found here look like?The answer is clear: Number 2Of course, anyone who will state this: and apparently suggests that there is a snowflake gremlin crafting each snowflake is so far removed from the real world that they will never be able to look at the two kind of designs and make any rational assessment of them. But this post is for the others who keep forgetting that the "designs" we see do speak volumes about the type of process that formed them.

It seems necessary Ray to point out to you what evidence is:A book is not evidence. Books written by Gould, Dawkins or Myers are not evidence for evolution. The Bible isn't evidence for anything other than what some people have written.What is evidence is the hard, reproducibly observable measurements and things referenced in such books. Also evidence is clear, step by step logic using the measurements and things to arrive at conclusions which can be reviewed by other to see if the steps are indeed reasonable and if the conclusions are tied to more basic observations.There is no special case here for the Bible; either for it or against it. It is simple NOT, in and of itself, evidence for anything about the world around us.You are being asked for such evidence just as anyone would ask for evidence backing up any statements made by anyone about the world.

Unfortunately, Ray, it is the w r o n g kind of design!We have two examples of apparent design available to us. The apparent design in nature is exactly the kind that we have shown evolutionary processes to produce. This doesn't prove that nature is produced by only these processes. But it removes the apparent design in nature as the proof of any kind of god.You protestations based on not understanding the nature of the design of any kind are weak and hysterical.Here's a link that discusses some aspects of the problem of recognizing design:
Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer