The Positive Case for Design
Harrisburg, PA — At the end of yesterday’s testimony in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, the plaintiffs’ team highlighted for reporters a key plank of their argument against the Dover Policy calling student’s attention to a book in the school library about intelligent design.
Plaintiffs reiterated evolutionist Dr. Kenneth Miller’s testimony that whereas design theorist Dr. Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity argument is testable and, therefore, scientific, “Irreducible complexity is just a negative argument against Darwinism, not a positive argument for design.” Thus, while irreducible complexity is a scientific hypothesis, the design inference supposedly is not. Miller insisted this holds for all intelligent design hypotheses. None of them, Miller argued, contains positive evidence for design.
But in fact, design theorists do provide a “Positive Case for Design.”
Additionally, Dr. Miller alleged that Of Pandas and People does not provide a positive case for design. Yet Miller’s statement on the witness stand strains all credibility in light of documentation provided here.