If ID is describing itself as science, shouldn't it be trying to falsify itself? Isn't that th way science behaves? Shouldn't ID be actively proposing research that would test the probabilities?
I have sensed a sea change in the intelligent design movement since late October last year. Previously, the movement concentrated on legal argument and techniques. And they have won quite handily with the “jury” being the school boards, the parents and the public.
Since late October, the movement seeks to become a disciplined science. The same presentation style may apply, but the jury now consists of scientists, and likely biased scientists at that, so the rules must be those the scientists live by. Included in those rules are formal hypotheses and methods of falsification.
Dembski is contemplating the potential of steganography for an intelligent design hypothesis. That’s not surprising to me considering his background. I think information theory holds potential as well and have suggested on this thread my layman’s version of a hypothesis and method of falsification.
Historically, young earth creationism eschews parts of science which intelligent design embraces. Friction has been developing between the two and it may be get worse because of the sea change. IMHO, that will be largely due to the perception that refutation is not equal to falsification under the scientists’ “rules of engagement.”
See my post 5277 for a fuller answer. However, let me say that unlike evolutionists, our side is not getting any government money for such research. I am sure many ID'ers do have some ideas on that.