That by itself can be a dangerous assumption.
Donald Hows: << An arch, if it not used to support things, is a rarity. If we assume that an arch is used to support things, like bridges, then a half made arch is no arch at all.>>
But the bridge is built step by step. Only in the end does it serve to support ?
Howes: << I think this is the logic being used here. If this arch can't support things, and in fact needs
supporting, then to suddenly change to being a support would be a strange thing. I confess that it could get there in small steps, but only if an intellegent desginer was overseeing the whole thing, with the out come in mind.>>
Well, at least we agree that Behe's argument is wrong. The only difference is that you require an 'intelligent designer', without further proof that this is indeed the case.
IBehe: << would like to see an example of a structure that is very complex, that can perform a funtion at all different stages of production, and that at completion can't work once one peice is removed. Even a hypothetical one would be nice, just to grasp your logic. Otherwise I will be inclined to
agree with Behe's argument.>>
You already seem to agree that he is wrong in believing that it could not have happened in small steps. The only thing left is that you still require an intelligent designer. Of course the problem is that you require 'an outcome in mind'. But the question is: "Is there a goal ?" And how do we identify the goal and distinguish it from the outcome ?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html shows a pathway through which an irreducibly complex system could have arisen in small steps with the functions intact.
The fact that removing a piece now leads to a collapse does not mean that there were no supports in the past that allowed pieces to be added or removed.