[quote=“Daniel_Fisher, post:7, topic:36197”]
Behe for instance seems to believe in large amounts of biological development and change through the natural forces of evolution alone (I.e., “disproving” signals that may at first appear designed)… though he seems to view some of the biological data, though, as significant enough to demand intelligent agency.
[/quote]Science isn’t about belief. Claiming that it is not your own, but someone else’s, obligation to test your hypotheses (Behe’s testimony in the Dover trial) is a rejection of science itself. It’s also a major tell that Behe doesn’t believe his own rhetoric. For practicing scientists, our level of belief in our hypotheses correlates with our desire to try to falsify them by testing them empirically.
The point is that they aren’t doing science at all, with the exception of Axe, who is doing badly and not testing a real evolutionary hypothesis.
Stopping at “detection” is inherently unscientific. Can you name a single case of studying human agency that stops at mere detection, ignoring the far more pertinent questions of who, where, when, and how?