Editing Intelligent design (section)

===Arguments from ignorance===
[[Eugenie Scott|Eugenie C. Scott]], along with [[Glenn Branch]] and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are [[Argument from ignorance|arguments from ignorance]].
In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.<ref name="Scott and Branch">{{cite web
|url=http://ncse.com/creationism/general/intelligent-design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists |title='Intelligent Design' Not Accepted by Most Scientists |last1=Scott |first1=Eugenie C. |author-link=Eugenie Scott |last2=Branch |first2=Glenn |author-link2=Glenn Branch |date=August 12, 2002
|orig-year=Reprinted with permission from ''School Board News'', August 13, 2002 |website=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, Calif. |type=Blog |access-date=2009-11-18}}</ref>

In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge John E. Jones III wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the ''[[McLean v. Arkansas]]'' (1982) trial, which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity.<ref>{{cite court
|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
|vol=04
|reporter=cv
|opinion=2688
|date=December 20, 2005
}} [[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District#4. Whether ID is Science]], pp. 71–74.</ref>