Replies

Miller, professor of cell biology at Brown University and co-author of three popular biology textbooks, said intelligent design, unlike natural selection and other scientific theories, cannot be tested or falsified because it invokes supranatural explanations for natural phenomena.

I am somewhat puzzled by the dogmatic assertion that ID cannot be falsified; while it is true that new "unsolved" cases can continually be found, if evolution is so clearly true, individual problems of complexity should be falsifiable by evidence (if it is actually findable) of how structures such as the eye evolved. Is it, or is it not doable? If it is just do it. A clear explanation of how a particular structure/function evolved amounts to falsification of the hypothesis that it illustrates irreducible complexity. A sufficient number of such refutations will convince the public. Or is it too complex for the public to understand?

I am somewhat puzzled by the dogmatic assertion that ID cannot be falsified; while it is true that new "unsolved" cases can continually be found, if evolution is so clearly true, individual problems of complexity should be falsifiable by evidence (if it is actually findable) of how structures such as the eye evolved

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. Individual cases of 'irreducible complexity' can be falsified, but ID can't, because, as you say, ' new "unsolved" cases can continually be found'.

It's the old transition fossil paradox. If we find a form C intermediate between A and B, we've replaced one gap (between A and B) with two (between A and C, and C and B). So, Dembski argued, when we found that the flagellum wasn't irreducibly complex because parts of it are homologous to the type three secretory system, then the TTSS is irreducibly complex.

Infinite regress.

Falsification of specific ID claims is tricky because the goalposts move. When the flagellum was proposed, the goalpost was that no part of it could have a complete function. When that was falsified, some new definition sprang up. I'm sure the same thing applies to blood clotting.

This is a slow process, and the biology community is not holding its breath until Behe's challenges are met. If he were intellectually honest, he would be working to disprove his own claims. That's what scientists do. You don't say that something can't be done and then sit on your thumbs waiting for someone else to show that it can be done.