[Cicero]

Sorry, it would be best to read it for yourself. I'd try searching Amazon or the internet for William Dembski and Michael Behe as a start. Here's the results of Google searches:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-46,GGLG:en&q=Dembski

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-46,GGLG:en&q=Behe

[Rudder]

Thank you for the links, I checked them out and I've read them before. There are no data in these articles that has been generated by ID researchers. Irreducable(sic) complexity has been refuted by Behe's own words (while under oath). That ID, unlike the rest of science, requires no empirical observations has been asserted by Behe to be okay. Behe refers to a "proof " as anything which is 'evidence of an intentional purpose.'

Come on! This is not science. It's pseudo-intellectual mush.