How do Intelligent Design People act?

quote:

---

if Behe can provide these sorts of examples, he's obviously done some sort of research and study to draw such a conclusion

---

But not very much.Behe's argument essentially adds up to:1. Systems that only work when completely assembled cannot evolve by the simple addition of parts. (purely theoretical)2. These systems do not work is part is removed (from other people's research).3. It is unlikely that they would evolve in any other manner. (pure opinion - and not supported by any research - or even a solid understanding of evolution)4. There is no current explanation of how this system evolved. (At best looking through other people's research).5. Therefore it did not evolve.Because point 3 is weak (and very likely false - decades earlier Mueller, taking a more realistic view of evolution predicted that evolution SHOULD produce "irreducibly complex systems") it cannot be considered a solid scientific argument.

quote:

---

so why is his study & research not considered science?

---

Aside from deficiencies in his research (which includes very little original research of his own) it's because the whole argument rests on an unsupported personal opinion.

Having repeatedly misrepresented Dawkins Weasel program (itself a toy intended only to illustrate cumulative selection) - and having this fact pointed out to him more than once, what does Dembski do when he discovers more evidence that he was wrong ?He still insists that he was right.Dembski Weasels OutApparently the way to work out how the program works isn't to look at the description of the program, but instead to look at the "edited highlights" of the output presented in the book and jump to the conclusion that Dembski was right. The possibility that Dembski could be wrong is not to be considered.

To add to Percy's reply "Mueller" is an alternative spelling the "e" stands in for the umlaut.Mller's view of evolution is more realistic because Behe's argument completely ignores the idea that the parts can (and do) change.Evolution goes with what works now. If a change makes a useful part essential it may spread just through drift - that change isn't detrimental in itself. If the change also has beneficial effects it will spread by natural selection. There is simply no good reason for assuming that the system won't change in ways that make it irreducibly complex.