"It might lead to the conclusion, 'No known natural mechanisms could account for this event. There are empirically sound reasons for ruling out all known natural mechanisms.'"
This leads to an interesting question. If this truly were a viable conclusion that could be drawn from empirical evidence, how come no one has yet found an event or phenomenon that would demand this conclusion? There are lots of phenomena that could easily lend themselves to this conclusion; photosynthesis is one. Yet every phenomenon so far discovered and studied has had a naturalistic explanation. As such, it would seem to me that the history of science is against Dembski as well as the metaphysics of science.
Kevin L. O'Brien
"Good God, consider yourselves fortunate that you have John Adams to abuse, for no sane man would tolerate it!" William Daniels, _1776_