[...]
RB> Well, the ID proponents certainly hope to show that this
RB>theory IS testable scientifically, don't they? Isn't that what
RB>Dembski's argument is trying to accomplish(even if you think
RB>he fails to do so)?
[...]
Dembski advances a logical argument concerning detection of
"design". I put design in quotes because what Dembski uses
"design" as is not the typical usage. This is a necessary,
but not sufficient, part of coming up with testable
scientific hypotheses.
See "Dembski defines design".
http://x14.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=409645661
Also, the topic of explanatory filters was broached. I have
a post on that as well.
http://x14.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=383732124
I am currently working my way through "The Design Inference".
I see some definite differences between what TDI appears to
establish and what others are claiming that it establishes.
Wesley