On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"(22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).[emphasis added]
That's ID's score card, folks: NO peer-reviewed articles supporting it with positive evidence, NO articles supporting irreducuble complexity, and NO research or testing. Sure sounds like they desperately want to get to the "bottom" of things, doesn't it?
Don't forget that the John Templeton Foundation hands out around $60 million per year to explore religion & science issues, and they refuse to support ID.
I suppose it would be unscientific to assert that you exist either since there are NO peer-reviewed articles stating as much. Or are there? Certainly the rest of the world should not take your existence as a scientifically viable assertion on that account alone, right? No peer-reviewed article = no evidence = no science. Right?