Editing Irreducible complexity (section)

== In the Dover trial ==
At the 2005 ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'' trial, expert witness testimony defending ID and IC was given by Behe and Scott Minnich, who had been one of the "Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars" at Pajaro Dunes in 1993, was prominent in ID,<ref name=bsr06>{{cite web |url=http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles/issue10/evolution.pdf |title=In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley |access-date=3 November 2007 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060901093543/http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles/issue10/evolution.pdf | archive-date=1 September 2006 |author=Michelangelo D'Agostino |date=Spring 2006 |work=Berkeley Science Review |pages=31–35 |quote=Two years later, Johnson organized a meeting at Pajaro Dunes near Monterey to bring like-minded thinkers together. Its participants would become the major public figures in intelligent design: Scott Minnich and Michael Behe, who would testify on behalf of ID in Dover, ..... }} (also {{cite web | title=In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley | website=The Berkeley Science Review: Read: Articles | date=1 September 2006 | url=http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060901072446/http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution | archive-date=1 September 2006 | url-status=dead | access-date=23 July 2023}})</ref> and was now a tenured associate professor in microbiology at the [[University of Idaho]].<ref name="TalkOrigins Archive day20pm 1">{{cite web | title=Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 20, PM, Part 1: Scott Minnich | website=TalkOrigins Archive | url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day20pm.html | access-date=28 July 2023}}</ref> 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 nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."<ref name="Kitzmiller_ruling_ID_science" /> There was extensive discussion of IC arguments about the bacterial flagellum, first published in Behe's [[Darwin's Black Box|1996 book]], and when Minnich was asked if similar claims in a 1994 [[Creation Research Society]] article presented the same argument, Minnich said he did not have any problem with that statement.<ref name="Slack 2008 p. 173" /><ref name="TalkOrigins Archive day20pm 2">{{cite web | title=Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 20, PM, Part 2: Scott Minnich | website=TalkOrigins Archive | url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day20pm2.html | access-date=29 July 2023|quote=Q. Now, you and Dr. Behe both, or together, you make the same claim, the claim of irreducible complexity?  A. Correct. Q. And essentially if I understand your contention, it is that an irreducibly complex system is one in which it cannot function unless all the parts are there, and you take away one part and the system ceases to function, correct?  A. Correct.  Q. And the point that you're trying make for purposes of evolution is that irreducibly complex systems in your view cannot evolve?  A. I think it's a problem for evolution. ..... Q. Dr. Minnich, I'm showing you a publication of the Creation research Society Quarterly from June of 1994. Do you see that? ... ... I'd like you to agree with me, to know whether you agree with me that that is the same argument that you have advanced here today in your direct testimony. A. Right, I mean in terms of -- I don't have any problem with that statement. ...}}</ref>

In the final ruling of ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', Judge Jones specifically singled out irreducible complexity:<ref name=Kitzmiller_ruling_ID_science>[[s:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Memorandum Opinion, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]</ref>
*"... creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID. (P-853; P-845; 37:155–56 (Minnich))." (Page 34)
*"Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73)
*"As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74)
*"By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the [[United States National Academy of Sciences|NAS]] has rejected Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75)
*"As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15–16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." (Page 76)
*"...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))." (Page 78)
*"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45–46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35–40 (Miller); 28:63–66 (Fuller)). We will now consider the purportedly "positive argument" for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the "purposeful arrangement of parts." Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90–91, 18:109–10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the [[William Paley|Reverend William Paley]]'s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6–7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller))." (Pages 79–80)