[js1138]

But is it not true that by "Scientific alternative" you mean a hypothesis which does not infer a beyond-natural first cause -- regardless of the fact whether such a first cause is possible or plausible?

No, science can investigate claims of supernatural causes unless such causes are capricious. What science requires is a regular pattern of cause and effect.

If the ID proponents could ascribe some attributes to the designer, or provide some list of the times or places or modes of intervention, or cite some specific examples of intervention, that would be a first step.

What you have at the moment is Behe claiming, in generic terms, that evolution occasionally gets stuck, unable to surmount the problem of generating some complex structure.

This is not a proposition that suggests any line of research. What you have is a claim that some undefined entity having unspecified capabilities and limitations did some unspecified something at unspecified times and places using unspecified means for unspecified reasons.

I suppose that could be true, but it isn't a scientific proposition. It isn't even a very good theological proposition.

[mrjesse]

No, science can investigate claims of supernatural causes unless such causes are capricious. What science requires is a regular pattern of cause and effect.

If the ID proponents could ascribe some attributes to the designer, or provide some list of the times or places or modes of intervention, or cite some specific examples of intervention, that would be a first step.

What you have at the moment is Behe claiming, in generic terms, that evolution occasionally gets stuck, unable to surmount the problem of generating some complex structure.

This is not a proposition that suggests any line of research. What you have is a claim that some undefined entity having unspecified capabilities and limitations did some unspecified something at unspecified times and places using unspecified means for unspecified reasons.

I suppose that could be true, but it isn't a scientific proposition. It isn't even a very good theological proposition.

But the fact that science cannot investigate capricious supernatural things does not mean that capricious supernatural things do not exist.

It is entirely possible that capricious supernatural things do exist - and if they do, then there are things in this world that science cannot deal with. So since it is possible that there are things with which science cannot deal, then it is not correct to say that "if science can't deal with it that it doesn't exist."

Besides, I don't see what's so capricious to hypothesize that God created distinct kinds, which somewhat diversified since then. Detectives work back to the non-natural cause of a series of events all the time.

One thing I've noticed is that at least one of the following bankrupt ideas is usually used or brushed up against in most evolution debates:

If it could be it must be

If it can work a little ways, it can (and did) work a long ways

Lack of evidence against is evidence for.

if some predictions of a theory come true then the theory is true

If the analogy works so does the real thing

The fact that a theory is void in some ways does not invalidate the theory

-Jesse