Originally posted by Halitose
Err... right. Sure thing. Could you perhaps point out where exactly and how?
For example, you say that forensics must be wrong if ID is wrong. Simply because we cannot see any other way those fingerprints could have gotten on the gun. Well, actually it IS possible that greasy particles randonly adhered to the gun in that way, although the probability of this happening are billions to one. Likewise, a good proscecutor will, of course, point out that the fact that someones fingerprints are on a gun only shows that the held the gun at some point, not that they pulled the trigger killing someone.
Behe and the Irreducible complexity bunch say that eyes cannot be any simpler than ours, which is absolute bull. My brother got stabbed in the eye as a kid and still has bad eyesight in that eye - hasn't killed him (indeed, his reproductive fecundity is higher than mine, since he has a kid and I don't!)! Likewise, tonnes of organisms have more simple eyes. Octopi possibly have eyesight nearly as good as ours, dogs have worse eyesight, flatworms are still worse - they can only really sense the direction of the light, yet they still live.
The difference between the two examples is one is theoretically possible but unlikely, and the second is a stubborn refusal to actually look at the copious evidence that actually exists.