[Logophile]

However, a paper published in the April 7th issue of Science provides the first experimental proof that "irreducible complexity" is a misnomer, and that even the most complex systems come into being through Darwinian natural selection.

Mathematicians do proofs; experimentalists obtain observations or data.

An experiment can disprove a theory, or it can provide data that is consistent with a theory. But it cannot "prove" a theory to be true.

[Reily]

To all
I actually find stuff like this

"In their search for patterns, mathematicians have uncovered unlikely connections between prime numbers and quantum physics. Will the subatomic world help reveal the elusive nature of the primes?
"
to be a more plausible argument for ID then anything I have currently read written by Dembinski, Behe or others.
I admit its not really scientific evidence BUT its one of those things that makes one go 'what the...?'

Again I think ID should be discussed and debated. It should rise or fall on its own merits. I don't see anything yet that would make me call it science. (It doesn't belong in the average high school science class. Perhaps a high school philosophy of science class. ). It most certainly is metaphysics which is a perfectly legitimate field of human inquiry !