Another issue with the problem is this:

With the atronomically generous asusmption that you could have all the right parts, that would fit to form the flagellum. To co-opt them they would have to be made at the same time, yet “installed” in the correct sequence, with the correct three dimensional orientation relative to each other and the cell membrane.

A large protein is 10nm.
A small bacteria is maybe 1000 nm.

If the cell were a sphere with the diameter of a football field. And a protein were the size of a barrel. What are the odds you would randomly assign 40 barrel sized parts to assemble at the same time and proper order at any localized spot on the surface of that sphere? Good luck!

One angle of the overall origin problem, regarding any attempted Darwinian explanation, is mostly overlooked – though maybe not in principle – and daming to the any attempted gradualistic explanation:

So, there are about 40 highly integrated, exactly sized, protein parts that make up the bacterial flagellum. If an attempted Darwinian explanation invokes co-option, it still does not take into account that the prts actually fit. Afterall, three is no reason that the stator should accomodate the shaft which should fit the proton drive motor which should accomodate a sensory feedback & control mechanism (which has it’s own issues fo that matter).

For exmple, if I gave you most of the parts for a gasoline powered lawnmowever engine, but the provided piston was from a tractro trailer truck, and a piston cylinder was from a model airplane engine… Do you really think you could co-opt the parts?

Same for the flagellum, even if you could derive all these parts in the cell, whose to say that they will fit? IF you say they fit all at the same time on the fist try, then you are violating gradulism. If you say they evolve to fit, then you are defying the notion that evolution is not forward looking. Afterall, to think they still happen to evolve and happen [fortuitoutly; by chance] upon a function much greater than the sum of their parts(i.e.locomotion system) is inane & unwittingly(?) begging for hopeful monsters.

I have no doubt he would be absolutely horrified by way in which his theory has been used to abuse the institution.

Good question. Difficult to answer.

The last sentence of The Origin of Species leaves open the idea that the original form(s) of life was/were designed. If there was sincerity in that declaration, he might opt for some type of front loaded design, where these incredible features were built in from the start, with the option to diversify as he described.

On the other hand, he took the death of one of his children quite hard, and this affected his views regarding God.

If someone doesn’t want God in the picture, no amount of evidence may seem sufficient to warrant letting that Divine Foot in the door.

Makes sense. But notwithstanding the reasonnig, Darwinist can always come up with some fanciful just-so stories to explain them, or attempt to downplay the findings. Such as, what design, it only appears designed! But for some reason, it warrants explanation… or maybe, music only appears to be enoyable becasue we evovled to enjoy it… and developoing the use of calculus was just an insignificant side effect of knowing how to rub two sticks together for fire under a cave (cave…curve…under the curve…yeah! see!!! oh joy, Darwin would be delighted!)…anyway…and then get them peer reviewed in the process! LOL … membership benefits.

One wonders if Darwin himself would be as obstinant as his successors in denying the obvious engineering design of the cell if modern information were presented to him.

My guess would be that such denial can only be purchased with 150 years of accumulated blinding numbness, like frogs slow-cooked to a friendly boil. Darwin would probably have torn his manuscript up if he were faced with what we now know about the cell.

The designer used a technology so sophisticated that we are still not able to understand it completely.