In remark 11 Behe set a list of points.
I’ll start with number 2:
I was given no chance to read them [ fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system], and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater.
How it comes that an expert, who present an expert opinion in front of a tribunal, declaring that the immune system is irreducibly complex, have no knowledge of every single word written on the subject? Forgetting to study one or two articles, or even a book that would be excusable. But 58 articles, and 9 books and several immunology textbook chapters ? What kind of expertise is that?
On number 3:
Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism.
And that’s a nice point. The only scientific evolution theory available is darwinism. And when one talk about evolution nowadays he shouldn’t think of anything else. I had the remark of Jean Staune on this point concerning Jean Paul II. Evolution, in singular, and when referring to scientific theories may be used as synonym of darwinism, as far as there is no competition. And even if one don’t talk science, say if intelligent designists would like to use the term « evolution » they should add « Introduction » to get « Introduction & Evolution » for example as they postulate that something didn’t evolved but was produced and introduced in the biosphere.
On number 4:
In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain the phrase “random mutation”; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection was true — they did not even try to demonstrate it.
I don’t know a single biologist using the term « random mutation » except in courses and ID discussions. The you talk about mutations or evolution and that’s it. I’m one of those assuming that evolution is true as far as it explains my data and nothing comes to show that there is something that can’t be explained by it. So what ? When you talk about evolution of a system, today, you don’t have to have to specify each time « darwinian evolution of an irreducibly complex, according to Behe, system ».