[[Forensic science — the same science that convicts criminals using DNA — establishes common descent.]]
Oh really? And what evidence ‘establishes’ that? Behe can beleive what he likes- but unless he has actual proof that it does infact establish that, then all he is positting is an opinion- an a priori opinion at that. The Evidence does NOT establish common descent- to state so goes beyond the objective evidence and enters the realm of faith and religious belief. ALL it establishes is ‘connection to’- whether it be connection to’ nature, or ‘connection to’ intelligence. Behe has also argued that the evidence can just as well establish common design- He is man enough to admit that, but he personally BELIEVES that it more so shows descent- BUT again, he has NO concrete evidence to back that personal belief up- all he has is assumptions and a priori opinionso n the matter beyond the actual evidence.
Some opinions are worth more than others. Courts don't let just anyone testify as an expert, and Behe was pretty much the only biologist testifying at the Dover trial on behalf of the ID movement.
He also testified at a textbook trial more recently in California.
But more important than who testifies is how they frame their arguments. The same argument that identifies criminals and identifies relatives in custody cases confirms common descent. I'm not aware of anyone in the ID movement who denies the evidence for common descent.