Scientifically, we can express the ID conjecture as: "There exists at least one biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection". ID advocates have cited some examples they think are candidates, such as the bacterial flagellum. Are any scientists out there willing to scientifically test the hypothesis, or are they going to take natural selection on faith, as with "human-induced climate change"?
Are any scientists out there willing to scientifically test the hypothesis, or are they going to take natural selection on faith, as with "human-induced climate change"?You'd think that the ID big-shots would be keen on testing their own 'hypothesis', but they're not. In court Behe said he prefers to spend time with "more fruitful endeavors" (like writing books he can sell, I guess). In other words: they want others to do the job for them.
But hypothetically, if a scientist proves that a feature thought to be irreducibly complex could evolve by natural selection, they could still point to another feature and say "well, THIS one IS irreducibly complex". This happened when the irreducibly complexity of the bacterial flagellum was debunked (part of it has a different functions in other organisms).
Prove something cannot be explained. By what agency are you going to prove this? Prove that Leprechauns didn't build the process that cannot be "explained" by natural means.
Can't Prove a Negative. Until humanity explores every possible explanation of natural selection being responsible for that biological structure then a supernatural explanation is premature. Only problem is, you have to wait for eternity to exhaust all those options.