From the link where the author quoted Coyne.
If one accepts Behe’s idea that both evolution and creation can operate together, and that the Designer’s goals are unfathomable, then one confronts an airtight theory that can’t be proved wrong. I can imagine evidence that would falsify evolution (a hominid fossil in the Precambrian would do nicely), but none that could falsify Behe’s composite theory. Even if, after immense effort, we are able to understand the evolution of a complex biochemical pathway, Behe could simply claim that evidence for design resides in the other unexplained pathways. Because we will never explain everything, there will always be evidence for design. This regressive ad hoc creationism may seem clever, but it is certainly not science. (Coyne 1996)[underlining mine]
From the article quoted in you post #262
Behe explained that Miller's critiques of Behe's arguments regarding the blood clotting cascade have been flawed. Miller’s slide (from his earlier testimony) shows that the cascade isn’t broken if some proteins are knocked out of a pufferfish cascade; but Behe says there are 2 pathways, like 2 lightswitches, which will turn on the clotting. Miller only showed that the other pathway still works (a point which Behe qualified in DBB). Miller didn't show that there isn't an irreducible core which is still irreducibly complex. Miller’s citing of sequence comparisons says nothing about the mechanism of evolution. [underlining mine]
It is interesting that Coyne predicted Behe's action back in 1996. This points out quite strongly the problem with falsifiability inherent in ID.
I don't know if this judge has what it takes to grasp what a charlatan Behe truly is. But it's not important. Even if the judge is bamboozled enough to think there's actually some hints of science in Behe's babbling, he can still easily find that presenting ID in school violates the First Amendment. Don't forget, it's all about applying the Lemon test.
To fly under the First Amendment radar, the defendant school board must show that its ID statement passes the three-pronged Lemon test:
First, the statute [or any state action] must have a secular legislative purpose;They've got plenty of evidence from statements made by school board members about item one. I don't think there's much doubt about item two. Or item three. But showing that the ID declaration violates any of the three prongs of the Lemon test is enough for the plaintiffs to prevail. Then it will be up to the Supreme Court to follow or reject Lemon.second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,
finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Which means evolution CAN explain the origin of irreducibly complex systems. Which people have been saying on these threads for years now only to be asked, "Where's the PROOF of that?"