But you are talking about an analogy with manmade objects. We can observe their manufacture and know they are created. It is not so easy with natural entities; no one observed their origins. The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed. While I can buy into that, I don't think everybody does. Irreducible complexity didn't fare well in the Kitzmiller case of course.
I failed to support my claim of "Kangaroo Court".....
@ the end of a Trail, a Document is filed with the Judge from Both Parties before a Judgement is handed down: Both Sides File with the Judge: "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document.
Eric Rothschild (ACLU) The Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs Document remarks and Judge Jones Ruling:
ER (ACLU): "The assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based on an analogy to human design."
JJ: "Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design".
So Judge Jones adds "INDEED" and "UP" to "on" to make "Upon".
ER (ACLU): "According to Professor Behe, because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
JJ: "Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
So Judge Jones decides to move "According to Professor Behe" a little further away from the beginning of the sentence. It's exactly the same sentence in TOTO.
ER (ACLU): "Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions. If this is the test, Intelligent Design completely fails.
JJ: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.
So the Judge adds an "However" and another "UP" to "ON" again to make "upon". Additional editing... the Judge added a semi-colon before however and replaced Intelligent Design with "ID".
If you wish, I can post the entirety of this Cut and Paste Fiasco Kangaroo Court....which besides three additional words, is Eric Rothschild's (aka: ACLU) Complete Document cut and pasted for Judge Jones to Render!!
Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that: "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".
Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or
Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)
The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed.
The whole point, or inference as you stated, from Behe's point of view was that these "Specifically Complex" Machines (Flagellar Motor) in this case couldn't have been built or "evolve" one step @ a Time over millennia or any other time frame. They had to be Complete and working in TOTO. Unless, you ascribe Sentience/Intelligence/ Prescience to stupid atoms.
The big problem was, Irreducible Complexity Falsified (Again...SEE: Punctuated Equilibrium and Convergent evolution) this little number....
Charles Darwin "Origin of Species": "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."
The Flagellar Motor/Apparatus is used for swimming.....so, what the opposition was postulating??... that Prokaryotes sat around for fill in the blank______ time frame while Stupid Atoms got together and constructed a Motor...so then it could swim? Nope that's ludicrous, they went this route.... "Co-Opted" parts of a less "Specifically Complex" apparatus (The Type III Secretory System).....This is a Clumsy Strawman Argument (Fallacy) and Non-Sequitur (If you wish for me to elaborate, just say the word).
It doesn't Work or is "Not Functional" until the Core Parts of the "Motor" are in Place. If one piece of the 50 piece motor is missing....you don't get 49/50ths of swimming: you get Bupkis/Nada....a Football Bat. Tracking?
By proxy, they're saying the need for the Bacteria to inject hosts with Toxins "came about" before the need to Swim. Preposterous! And that's not even dealing with their collective Strawman.
The Flagellar Motor....
Eight million of them would fit in the cross-sectional area of an average human hair.
Like an electrical motor, the flagellum contains a rod (drive shaft), a hook (universal joint), L and P rings (bushings/bearings), S and M rings (rotor), and a C ring and stud (stator). The flagellar filament (propeller) is attached to the flagellar motor via the hook. To function completely, the flagellum requires over 40 different proteins. The electrical power for driving the motor is supplied by the voltage difference developed across the cell (plasma) membrane.
A bacterial flagellar motor has the amazing quality of combining speed with efficiency. These extremely efficient motors can quickly stop, start, change speeds, and reach a top speed of about 100,000 rpm (revolutions per minute)! The cell is propelled up to 15 body-lengths per second at top speed. If this could be scaled up, it would be like a person of height 1.8 m (6 ft) swimming at 100 km/h (60 mph).
Also it is very versatile, as it has forward and reverse gears, enabling the germ to reverse
direction within a quarter of a turn. In contrast most man-made electric motors are up to
75–95% efficient at larger sizes, but lose efficiency as they get smaller.The bacterial motor is almost 100% efficient at cruising speed. The bacterium uses only 2% of its total energy for swimming.
Harikrishnan.J: In-Vivo NanoBot Aided Cancerous Tissue Targeting and Therapy
Furthermore, What is a Judge with Zero Scientific Background doing adjudicating on "Science"? Who's next MADD?
Also, the decision has "NO" jurisdiction outside Dover.