Good question: Is there anything I can defend, that isn't peer reviewed? Did peer review testing exist to prove that Lincoln existed? Or Jesus? Or that you currently exist?
What does this have anything that I have written, which you have quoted me?
What does Lincoln or Jesus have to do with Behe’s pseudoscience works (Irreducible Complexity (IC) and Darwin’s Black Box (DBB)) have not used “scientific method” to test his works and have not been “peer reviewed”?
Intelligent Design and Behe’s IC & DBB are Discovery Institute’s (including Behe’s) attempt at replacing the scientific theory of evolution and falsifiable hypothesis abiogenesis, as alternative “natural science” concept. But the Discovery Institute (including Behe) refused to follow the specifications of scientific method or reviewed by their peers, since DI know that their ID concept have nothing to do with science.
Lincoln and Jesus are people, and history of individuals have nothing to do with “natural science”, so you wouldn’t try “peer review” Lincoln or Jesus.
What I mean is that if you want to test for existence of Jesus or Lincoln, there are other means of testing or verifying if they exist or not, which has nothing to do with peer review, such as comparing with other independent historical records or with archaeology.
History and archaeology are not natural science; they (archaeology and history) have more to do with social science.
Natural science are studies of natural mechanisms, which includes physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science, astronomy. Evolution and abiogenesis falls under the broad category of biology.
While social science would include any social activities of man, like the studies of cultures (eg anthropology), sociology, archaeology (studies of man-made objects or man-made settlements), political science, morality and ethics, psychology, humanities, etc.
Comparing natural science and social science are like comparing apples and cheese.
I wouldn’t use peer review on the existence of Lincoln or on Jesus. You would use other mean of testing their existence, but not scientific method and not peer review. But it just showed that you don’t understand the concept of science.