August 20, 2005 - An Open Letter to Science Magazine From William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzalez, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, and Jonathan Witt. Alan I. Leshner ("Redefining Science," July 8) says intelligent design isn't science because scientific theories "explain what can be observed" and are "testable by repeatable observations and experimentation." But particular design arguments meet this standard. Biologist Michael Behe, for instance, argues that design is detectable in the bacterial flagellum because the tiny motor needs all its parts to function-is irreducibly complex-a hallmark of designed systems. The argument rests on what we know about designed systems, and from our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms. How to test and discredit Behe's argument? Provide a continuously functional evolutionary pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. Darwinists like Kenneth Miller point to the hope of future discoveries, and to the type III secretory system as a machine possibly co-opted on the evolutionary path to the flagellum. The argument <http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html> is riddled with problems <http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm>, but it shows that Miller, at least, understands perfectly well that Behe's argument is testable. If irreducible complexity can't even be considered in microbiology, how do we test the Darwinian story there? We certainly don't observe the Darwinian mechanism producing molecular machines. Is it true by default, by dogmatic pronouncement? That doesn't sound very scientific.