tgamble

"You are right that the "design inference" can give false negatives. I have pointed out in my book Darwin's Black Box and Bill Dembski has emphasized in The Design Inference that one can never rule out design, because intelligent agents can imitate random processes. However, the problem of false negatives is not the critical issue. The crucial issue is whether the design inference gives false positives. That is, does one ever come across something like Mount Rushmore and discover that it was the result of random processes?"

Yes. All of life is the result of such processes. If you insist on calling evolution "random"!

One wonders just what would convince him. How would one make such a discovery and support it with evidence he would accept? He insists on design of anything like Mount Rushmore because he rules out any other possiblity from sheer ignorance!

If you email him again, ask him to explain why he lied about biochemistry textbooks and evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/textbooks.html

The difference between mount Rushmore and life is that we KNOW That Mount rushmore was designed. We have independent evidence that the designers existed.

another difference is that Mount Rushmore doesn't have baby mountains with genetic change.

Kuglo

Behe deduces design from things "like Mt. Rushmore" because he's familiar with process (e.g. humans) known to create them. There is nothing ignorant about that. The stupidity is deciding that cellular components are "like Mt. Rushmore". Of course this is precisely what my refutation says.