No. The Flagellum's motor has already been proven to have intermediate steps. Your own article says that what you are telling me is pseudoscience.
Care to describe these steps then? Regardless of what the Wikipedia article says, it is not "pseudscience."
How could a rotary bearing possibly evolve in discrete steps? Don't you see the problem?
Take any one balls out of the bearing and the entire structure does not turn, defeating the purpose of the flagellum's motor. Take the casing off of the bearing and the balls fall out. Take the entire bearing out and the motor becomes worthless. The bearing is worthless without the motor and the motor is worthless without the bearing. It's a complete, complex system where each part relies on each other for function.
The picture you posted is not at all how the bearing in the bacterial flagellum motor works, and is instead a human-designed ball bearing. Such pictures do nothing but mislead. The motor is actually combination of proteins which form the socket and bearing, propeller, and drive shaft. One common proposed evolutionary pathway is that the socket began as an excretory system, and indeed it has many proteins in common with what is termed a "type III excretory system" which has a dissimilar but also useful function. The way the type III excretory system works is that it provides a socket, and a motor which pushes objects through the socket. When an object instead of being pushed through gets lodged, and the action of the motor trying to push it through causes it to spin, you instead get a motor. This is of course an oversimplification, but it shows that what may seem at first glance to be "irreducibly complex" may not be.
In fact, the entire premise of the "irreducible complexity" argument is poor - if you look at them closely they all share the following structure: consider structure X. Structure X is composed of many seperate parts, and the removal of any one of these causes structure X not to perform its desired function. I can see no way that structure X could have evolved by a slow evolutionary process with each small step granting a survival benefit, therefore it could not have happened. It is clear where the problem with this sort of reasoning is: just because
you can't see how something might have happened doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Especially since there are many many ways that structure X may have been formed. If structure X is composed of parts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, then it may be that the parts without H in place perform no useful function, but if you have all parts besides D, they do. And maybe when you discard D, it performs no useful function if you discard an additional part, but if instead of part B you have some slightly different part B', it is possible to discard C and still have a useful assemblage, so the evolutionary chain progressed from A, B', E, F, G, H to A, B', C, E, F, G, H to A, B, C, E, F, G, H to A, B', C, D, E, F, G, H.
It's like those games where you try to get from frogs to gloom by changing one letter at a time. Sure they only differ by four letters, but that doesn't mean you can get there in four steps - in fact it takes 10 steps, and at some point you have to change the one correct starting letter to an incorrect letter to make progress. Evolutionary pathways can be equally complicated, and the fact that there is no apparent way that a complicated structure may have evolved gradually does not indicate that it did not evolve - it simply indicates that its method of evolution is not readily apparent.