>In any case, this is an area for research. But it does not help that Jone's
>and Behe pretend to have proved something when they've only just barely
>*begun*.
Steve:
>No one is claiming that ID is "proved". It is a design *inference*. (as
>the title of Dembski's book "The Design Inference" make clear).
Indeed. But you must remember that almost all ID opponents adopt
the extreme strategy of demanding either a near-absolute proof of design or
a concession that design is not a justifiable or rational position.
Thus, since by definition, any ID inference is not a "proof," they can
claim ID is a failure and rant about it not be abandoned. The quest
for certainty can be very handy if you selectively apply it against the
beliefs you don't agree with.
Mike