(5) ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73 (Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)).
In my remark here I will focus on the word “cannot.” I never said or wrote that Darwinian evolution “cannot” be correct, in the sense of somehow being logically impossible, as the court implies (referencing exclusively to Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses). In its use of the word “cannot” the Court echoes the unfair strategy of Darwinists to force skeptics to try to prove a negative, to prove that Darwinism is impossible. However, unlike in mathematics or philosophy, in science one cannot conclusively prove a negative. One can’t conclusively prove that Darwinism is false any more than one can conclusively prove that the “ether” doesn’t exist. With this unfair strategy, rather than demonstrating empirical plausibility, Darwinists claim that the mere logical possibility that random mutation and natural selection may in some unknown manner account for a system counts in their favor. In the history of science no successful theory has ever demonstrated that all rival theories are impossible, and neither should intelligent design be held to such an unreasonable, inappropriate standard. Rather, a theory succeeds by explaining the data better than competing ideas.
It would be quite easy to just ask once more time what explanations Intelligent Design bring with it.
Let’s see however a few more points.
For Behe mathematics aren’t science and that’s interesting to know.
He pretends that Darwinism can’t be proven false; it would be quite simple if there where at least one example where darwinian models couldn’t explain data. The exact model description is often long term work, but showing where exactly darwinism fails would be a nice movement from Dr Behe’s part. Not generalities, just a single example and a clear explanation why darwinism cannot explain it. No need to do more 😉 And by the way, if his theory could explain those data that would be great. And this isn’t about demonstrating that all the rivals of Intelligent Design are impossible; keep it focused on darwinism as you decided so a long time ago.