[Matchett-PI]

"Everything is science is up for grabs. If you can't see it or devise a test for it, it goes." ~ js1138

Some scientists say that ID is not science-based but is purely a matter of faith.

ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity.

"Behe contends that irreducibly complex features are better explained by design because our knowledge and reason tell us that such features can only be produced by intelligent causes -- putting the lie, by the way, to the claim that ID is just one competing theory. Thus, ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity."

Excerpted from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1469807/posts

[js1138]

ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity.

That, of course, is the primary activity of science.

As for Behe, his examples are not irreducible. Since he proposed them, All of his examples have been found to have simpler, fully functional forms or components.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"D advocates argue that design inference is testable"

They lie, it isn't. Irreducible complexity, even if it could be demonstrated, would not be evidence for or against an intelligent designer. The two are separate concepts.


Irreducible complexity of course needs to be demonstrated. It hasn't been.