The demand for falsifiability misses how science actually works in many established disciplines. Archaeologists infer design when they find artifacts that bear marks of intention — symmetry, proportion, repetition, or purposeful alignment; not because they can “falsify” a natural origin in the laboratory, but because design is the most probable explanation of the evidence. The same logic applies when a geologist distinguishes a flint-knapped arrowhead from a naturally fractured stone.
Inference to the best explanation is a standard scientific method, and probability is its guide. If the structure or information we observe fits the known patterns of purposeful arrangement far better than those of undirected processes, design is the rational conclusion. It would be absurd to call an arrowhead a “natural formation” simply because we cannot falsify every possible natural scenario that might produce it. The same principle holds for biological systems: the presence of coordinated, information-driven machinery warrants the same inference. Design is not a retreat from science; it is the consistent application of scientific reasoning wherever purposeful pattern is most probable.