Kwok and all believers in Darwinism should be required to read In Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "The Black Swan" to learn criticcal thinking. Where Behe has proposed design for some living structures Kwok and the rest of Darwinists have no idea at all how things really happened. Run a second time evolution might generate an alternative form of life so the truth is neither Behe or Kwok (etal) have a clue how life came to be as it is. Behe is owed a great debt for acurately pointed out the limits of evolution and the mechanism for life to become as it is.
So the truth is that no one on earth knows how life got to be as it is. Kwok etal maintain that since design can't exist then there is a natural explanation for life. Sorry, that is just a guess and a lot less scientific than Behe's approach. Correlation is not causation but you would never know that from reading Darwinist output. Even the classic sceptic Taleb appears to blindly accept evolution even as he has no clue one way or the other beyond correlation.
I find of great interest Taleb's book. Particularly his propensity to self-contradiction. His critical thinking with regard to creationists (as noted on pages 117-118) are actually logical tautologies. That is-they cannot be proven because whatever solution, evidence, or absence of evidence, in essence "proves" the premise.
I take particular interest in Taleb's discussion on creation as it applies to the issue of inadvertent discoveries. His examples are, ironically, human. If his theories of predictability hold up universally-and if he were to subject this premise to the same rigor as his narrative fallacy (testing the "narrative" of his being from Lebanon and a non-Protestant culture, on page 63-64)-he should look to other non-cognitive, non-reasoning species. Look beyond humans for a moment-where is Taleb's evidence that the accident of significant discovery resides as an accident for monkeys, turtles, bison, snails, fish, and tadpoles? Where is the inadvertent discovery of such species, the equivalent of a computer, or CD player? The main, unexplained aspect of his defense is that it begins with "intelligence"-his own.
Or, if I might be so bold as to apply his own rationality, his own intelligence in the sampling is a bias that prevents him discovering and proving his theory. Again, a tautology. Taleb may well "find" evidence of inadvertent discoveries-but they are such to him. To his intelligence and cognition, or even to the rest of humanity. Here we either accept our presence within the system (and despite that, our evaluation as qualitatively valid), or else we need the presence of external observation and declaration in order to reliably support our premises. Premises, I must remind us, that originate within the cognition of our own intelligence.