Judges have their own bias. There is no doubt the judge was an atheist or believer in evolution. So her or she wasn't open minded.
Considering this judge is a conservative Republican appointed by George W. Bush in 2002, you have no grounds whatsoever for this assertion. A judge should rule on the facts of the matter, and to the best of my knowledge he did - because intelligent design as presented in the Dover case was merely religious creationism dressed up in a bit of scientific terminology, and thus had no place whatsoever having been mandated to be taught in a school.
Yes, ID is falsifiable in that if scientists can demonstrate that A.) there is no such thing as IC systems meaning no system stops functioning if one of the parts isn't there or B) an IC system can evolve via natural selection and random mutations.
This definition of falsifiability is, frankly, worthless. It's so vague that it cannot realistically be falsified by anything that any person could possibly do. In other words, it is an argument of the gaps. If someone shows that a particular "irreducibly complex" system is not actually irreducibly complex, or that it could have evolved, just shift to the next "irreducibly complex" system and take it from there.
That is why it is not science. It is simply an effort to reserve a space for God in the middle of science.
Many of the Darwins including Ken MIller have been saying they have falsified Behe's arguments. It can't be one or the other, either it is falsifiable or it isn't, so Darwins need to huddle and make up their minds.
Referring to people as Darwins makes them sound like they're related to Darwin. That's why most people of your ilk refer to them as Darwinists.
In any case, this illustrates the problem with the so-called "falsifiability" of irreducible complexity. It is so vague that it cannot be falsified. No matter how many examples of "irreducibly complex" systems are shown not to be, the hypothesis itself is not affected. That means that it is not falsifiable.
They have found DNA doesn't follow the asserted evolutionary pathways, one trait might lead to one species, another trait to another species.
So? Nobody said evolutionary biologists were perfect. Indeed, that's why they investigate this stuff, so they can improve our understanding of how evolutionary theory works. An attitude not shared by advocates of intelligent design, I might add, who's actual agenda is to attempt to overturn evolutionary theory.
How can we falsify the claim that random mutation and natural selection lead to IC systems? I don't think evolution is falsifiable at all because it has always been based on conjecture as nobody has ever observed one species evolve into others.
Instead of making assertions of what you think, since you do not really understand biology, let alone evolution, why not take the time to educate yourself? Then you might be able to make statements that other people could take seriously. As it stands, your opinion is neither knowledgeable nor informed (never mind expert) and thus has no bearing on anything.
It is funny how you, who have never designed anything, want to criticize the human body as not intelligent design, when the human body is factors more complex than anything intelligent engineers can design.
The relative complexity of the human body has no bearing on whether it was designed. That is why your argument is so utterly flawed - because you are equating complexity to design. Forget this "irreducibility" nonsense. Your whole argument boils down to that you don't understand how something complex and ordered could have come about naturally, so it must have been designed. But that argument doesn't work, because it makes no effort to find out how something actually came about. It is merely an attempt to rule out the explanation you don't like by fiat.
Also, intelligent design means that somebody with a brain aka intelligence had to design it, it is not about how good the design is in itself although of course the human body is a complex system.
Agreed, this doesn't matter. What does matter is showing evidence that the human body, or any other organic system, was actually designed, and showing how the process of that design worked. That's what you should be focusing on, finding the pathway that shows how organic systems were designed, rather than nonsensical and illogical arguments like "irreducible complexity".
And if you can't do it, you meaning everyone who advocates the intelligent design hypothesis, then you have no business arguing in favor of it in the first place.