Behe cleans up with the idea that the Creator God or the Intelligent Designer is a stopgap for the lack of explanation potency. The representatives of a belief in a Creator are often ridiculed for their assumption that they can fill their explanation gap not scientifically only with the idea of a Creator. Therefore, since they are not scientific, they cannot be taken serious. Intelligent Design is nothing but a stopgap, they say. Is this true? Hardly, because they who support "Intelligent Design" or "Creation" do not have the argument of creation from lack of the needed knowledge. Instead they have their argument from a specific knowledge which is the knowledge about intelligent existence. How? Humans are intelligent existence. Humans, who are intelligent beings, plan and create. We know this, so the argument of creation by intelligence is an argument of knowledge, of experience, whereas evolution has no experience on its side. Evolution is the unproved assumption. But many scientists say that there is no place within science for creation ideas. Creation is for them a constructed argument, based on lack of knowledge. Since science does not yet know how biology really came into being with al its complex systems, they even do not know how natural processes started - evolutionists having nothing more than only theories - it is plain, these Intelligent Design proponents say that a creator or intelligent design must fill the gap- this is plain for those who want to believe this. But those who believe this ,and Behe seems to belong to them, make clear that their decision to belief is based on the knowledge that all we know for sure is that intelligence can be made responsible for intelligently constructed entities. Creation is observable because we see what human beings do. Evolution is not observable. Biologic systems dispose over proprieties which are normally the result of intelligence. Think of a mouse trap which is a very simple tool for a special purpose. The whole design is developed and put into practise to serve the need. And a mousetrap is primitive in comparison with organic systems. We know that mousetraps are made by an intelligent being. Therefore it is logical to suppose that organic systems are also developed by intelligence to serve a special need. A butterfly for example is developed and created to be a butterfly. Each time when we come across a system which has a complexity that cannot be reduced, which means all parts are necessary that the system functions- our mousetrap - the existence must be thanks to intelligence. The author deduces from this that intelligence must be responsible for the complex molecular motors as the best explanation for the existence of non-reducible complex systems. He thinks to have the foundation from what we know about the laws of nature and intelligence. The same goes for the complexity of the DNA and the proteins which contain information that make sense as a sign of intelligence. Intelligence has skills which do not exist in the laws of nature. So intelligence is the best available explanation for the origin of complex systems. Intelligent creation is not based on knowing not, but on the well founded experience that intelligent information and non-reducible systems can only be produced by intelligence.