Richard Dawkins' Inferior Design is published in the New York Times Sunday Book Review. I'll take a page from the Dawkins playbook and respond to selected points. Dawkins:
For a while, Behe built a nice little career on being a maverick. His colleagues might have disowned him, but they didn’t receive flattering invitations to speak all over the country and to write for The New York Times. Behe’s name, and not theirs, crackled triumphantly around the memosphere. But things went wrong, especially at the famous 2005 trial where Judge John E. Jones III immortally summed up as “breathtaking inanity” the effort to introduce intelligent design into the school curriculum in Dover, Pa.
With hindsight we know that the judge copied from what plaintif attorneys had submitted to him. Citing this as "immortally summed up" has unintended irony.
Behe simply asserted without justification that particular biological structures (like the bacterial flagellum, the tiny propeller by which bacteria swim) needed all their parts to be in place before they would work, and therefore could not have evolved incrementally.
Deceitful. What Behe actually said:
An irreducibly complex system can not be produced directly… by slight successive modifications of a precursor system… (Page 39: Darwin's Black Box) (and) … one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. (page 40: Darwin's Black Box)
Behe is guilty of transgressing unspoken but real tribal rituals. You don't make comments like those above which feed doubt and you definitely do not let the possibility of a divine influence arise by leaving open a door which should have been closed.
Incidentally, further research usually reveals that A can explain the phenomenon after all: thus the biologist Kenneth R. Miller (a believing Christian who testified for the other side in the Dover trial) beautifully showed how the bacterial flagellar motor could evolve via known functional intermediates.
Could evolve. That's all you had to say Behe. It's too late to get back into the club man. We don't forget that type of transgression. Enough Dawkins. This might sound familiar:
Accurate replication of DNA is an essential component of cellular replication. There are multiple proteins which enable the DNA replication function. The process contemplated is that which occurs in unicellular organisms. I don't wish to bore the science experts who can't wait to enlighten the rest of us as to how the individual components of the DNA replication function gradually evolved. So I'll simply identify some important steps for instructional guidance purposes as well as proteins associated with them.
Replication must begin somewhere. Why not at the origin of replication with the formation of a replication fork. A prepriming complex of proteins forms. Included are DnaA proteins and single stranded binding proteins. Also involved are DNA helicases to separate the strands, DNA topoisomerases to respond to supercoils, DNA polymerase and DNA ligase.
Don't bother making semantic arguments about how to define irreducible complexity. There are multiple parts needed for function. The challenge lies in demonstrating the incremental evolution of these components. Judging by previous comments this should be a piece of cake. Identify pathways which include precursor functions and a functionally logical sequence of events supported by empirical data. Identify interpretation of data and distinguish it from the data itself.
Could have evolved. Hmmm. We'll just have to settle for conceptual pathways then. Have at it and no whining about OOL, unfair, yada, yada.