Show Me the Science [Critique of Intelligent Design, by Daniel Dennett

Sir, I followed your post, and it does not address my question.

I challenged you to "enumerate a few experiments which can be used to determine if a signal originated from an intelligent source." I wrote this is reply to your absurd challenge to enumerate a few experiments that can test the validity of ID.

The point is that any such SETI experiment must necessarily infer intelligence from the received signal. It cannot mathematically "prove" that intelligence because any signal can be the result of random chance.

Since you are having a hard time grasping fundamentals, let me try to spoon feed this to you with an example. Suppose SETI received the ASCII code for the entire text of Macbeth (and a terrestrial source was ruled out). I could say, "You can't prove that this came from an intelligent source. You can't prove that it wasn't random noise that just happened to mean something."

That's exactly the kind of absurd argument evolutionists use against ID routinely. But you take it a step further and insinuate that no possible test could provide evidence for intelligent design. If that is true, than SETI is a complete and utter waste of time and money.

Here in Dennet's article is an excellent example of bad science.

It is NOT science. That is philosophy. Of course that is the heart of the whole problem, so many confusing the philosophy of religion with science.

Eventually enough people will see what's going on and like myself, write letters and demand that macro evolution and related concepts be stricken from these Biology textbooks. It is not science.

Please tell me you're just joking? No one could be that big a fool deliberately?!?

Since you are having a hard time grasping fundamentals, let me try to spoon feed this to you with an example. Suppose SETI received the ASCII code for the entire text of Macbeth (and a terrestrial source was ruled out). I could say, "You can't prove that this came from an intelligent source. You can't prove that it wasn't random noise that just happened to mean something." That's exactly the kind of absurd argument evolutionists use against ID routinely. But you take it a step further and insinuate that no possible test could provide evidence for intelligent design. If that is true, than SETI is a complete and utter waste of time and money.

You are right. We couldn't prove it was from an intelligent source just as you can't prove ID. Thank you.

It is NOT science. That is philosophy. Of course that is the heart of the whole problem, so many confusing the philosophy of religion with science.

We agree. But does Dennet know that he has strayed out of the realm of science and into philosophy? Judging from the rest of his article, I am not so sure.

As you say, too many confuse philosophy with science. And as Dennet shows, it is not just the creationists who have this trouble.

Interesting data like this;

"Inanimate stepping stones of abiotic evolution are essential components to any natural process theory of the molecular evolution of life. Full reign must be given to the exploration of spontaneously forming complexity and to self-ordering inanimate systems.

"Any scientific life-origins theory must connect with "life" as we observe it (the "continuity principle")."

This renders mute the argument evolution doesn't have to answer the origin of life question. The prize is specifically about evolutionists answering the origin of life question.

"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."

Zing!

"Appealing to unknown "laws" as the source of biological instruction constitutes a "category error" of logic theory. "Laws" do not cause anything. They are merely human generalizations, mental constructions, and mathematical descriptions of existing forces and mass-energy relationships. Even "chance" is a probabilistic rational construct. Neither chance nor "laws" cause effects. Unknown laws, therefore, cannot provide a mechanism for prescriptive information (instruction) genesis. Appealing to unknown laws constitutes a "naturalism of the gaps," corresponding to supernaturalists' appealing to a "God of the gaps" for scientific explanation. Neither is acceptable in naturalistic science."

Ha Ha

"We must remember, however, that the full compliment of nucleic acid code, ribozymes, and protein enzymes are still present immediately after cell death. Life, therefore, would appear not to be reducible to coded prescriptive information (instruction) alone. Life is also not "a bag of enzymes."

It ought to be easy to bring roadkill back to life, it's all there right??

Or to cling to a flawed theory without considering that it may be flawed.

Please show us the flaw.

This prize is a fraud.

Oh?

Judging

In-house staff will first review all submissions to screen for required documents and compliance with applicable rules and conditions. After nonacademic in-house review, origin-of-life specialists drawn from many universities and institutes in over forty countries will review the papers on a tiered basis. A minimum of ten judges from the screening tier will review each submission. If 70% feel the submission has sufficient merit to advance to the next higher tier of judges, the submission will be forwarded to a minimum of ten new judges in the second tier. This process will be repeated up to the fifth and final tier of judges unless the submission fails to receive 70% recommendation from any lower tier. The Foundation reserves the right to forward the submission to more than ten judges in any one tier.

Every effort will be made to refer submissions to judges who are best qualified in the submitter's area of expertise. The requirements for winning the Prize, however, are very interdisciplinary. There is no one specialty for the origin of genetic prescriptive information (instruction) through natural process. All of the nearly 200 judges will be required to cross interdisciplinary lines in evaluating submissions.

Judges include information theorists, computer scientists, probabilists, biophysicists, thermodynamicists, artificial life and intelligence experts, biochemists, molecular biologists, mathematicians, geochemists, astronomers, philosophers of science, exobiologists/astrobiologists, molecular evolutionists, and origin-of-life investigators from many diverse specialties. The decisions of each judge will unavoidably be very subjective. The Foundation and applicants are both forced to abide by the 70% rule in each tier of judging. In situations where an applicant receives a 69% vote, for example, the Foundation reserves the right to send the submission out to a much larger number of judges in that tier to clarify the average percentage.

Many life-origin specialists advised us to include "outside" judges to guard against biases toward certain life-origin models. Individuals were selected for specific judging tiers on the basis of the quality and number of such individual's published papers, books, conference lectures, experience in life-origin research, recommendations of colleagues, self-evaluation of tier level, and other factors.

The final and highest tier of judging will be carried out by a select group of highly respected life-origin investigators and theorists along with Nobel laureates and distinguished members of many National Academies of Sciences who are not necessarily life-origin specialists.

Judges of The Origin-of-Life Prize Include:

------------------------------------------------------------ Freeman J. Dyson, USA, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton A. Graham Cairns-Smith, SCOTLAND, University of Glasgow (ret), Jack W. Szostak, USA, Dept. of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts Gen. Hosp. Jeffrey Tze-Fei Wong, HONG KONG, Biochem., Hong Kong Univ.of Sci.& Tech. Charles H. Townes, USA, Physics Dept, University of California at Berkeley John D. Barrow, U.K., Appl Math & Theor Physics, Cambridge Pier Luigi Luisi, SWITZERLAND, Institut fur Polymere, ETH-Zurich Paul Davies, AUSTRALIA, Professor of Physics, Burnside, South Australia Werner R. Loewenstein, USA, Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory Paul Schimmel, USA, The Scripps Research Institute, Skaggs Institute Edward O. Wilson, USA, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard Hyman Hartman, USA, M.I.T.; Inst Adv Stud in Biol, Berkeley Robert Shapiro, USA, Department of Chemistry, New York University Guy Ourisson, FRANCE, Pres. Academy of Sciences, Centre de Neurochemie Christoph Adami, USA, California Institute of Technology J. Peter Gogarten, USA, Dept.of Molecular & Cell Biology, Univ.of Connecticut Koichiro Matsuno, JAPAN, Nagoaka Univ.of Technol., Dept.of Bioengineering Wolfram Thiemann, GERMANY, Biologie/Chemie, Universitat Bremen Massimo Di Giulio, ITALY, Internat Instit of Genetics & Biophysics, CNR Ronald R. Breaker, USA, Biology Department, Yale University Iluis Ribas de Pouplana, USA, TSRI, The Scripps Research Institute Kenneth H. Nealson, USA, JPL, Geol & Planetary Sciences, Caltech Noam Lahav, ISRAEL, The Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture Anthony D. Keefe, USA, Mol Biol, Mass Gen Hosp, Harvard Medical School George E. Fox, USA, Biochemical & Biophysical Sci, Univ. Houston Patrick Forterre, FRANCE, Inst. de Genetique et Microbiol., Universit‚ Paris Doron Lancet, ISRAEL, Dept Membrane Res & Biophys, Weizmann Inst Sci. Jacques Ninio, FRANCE, Lab Physique Statis, Ecole Normale Supervieure Peter E. Nielsen, DENMARK, Biomolecular Recognition, The Panum Institute Romeu Cardoso Guimaraes, BRAZIL, Biologica Gen, Inst. Ciencias Biol Robin D. Knight, USA, Dept. Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Princeton U. Y. J. Pendleton, USA, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field Donald H. Burke, USA, Department of Biochemistry, Indiana University Edward J. Steele, Australia, Biol. Sciences, Univ. Wollongong Hans Kuhn, SWITZERLAND, Max Planck Institut Biophysikalische Chemie (ret) Hubert P. Yockey, USA, Aberdeen Proving Grounds (ret) Margaret A. Boden, Professor, U.K., Cognitive & Computing Sci, U. Sussex Liaofu Luo, CHINA, Department of Physics, Inner Mongolia University Klaus Dose, GERMANY, Institut Biochemie, JOH. Gutenberg-Universitat Oleg V. Davydov, REP. OF BELARUS, Belarussian Inst. Epidem. & Microbiology Wolfgang E. Krumbein, GERMANY, Geomicrobiology ICBN, Univ. Oldenburg Manfred Schidlowski, GERMANY, Biogeochem, Max-Planck-Institue KC Nicolaou, USA, Department of Chemistry, Scripps Research Institute P. W. Atkins, Ph.D., U.K., Lincoln College, Oxford University Akihiro Shimada, JAPAN, Institute of Applied Biochemistry, Univ.of Tsukuba Hakobu Nakamura, JAPAN, Professor (emeritus), Biological Inst., Konan Univ. Joseph L. Kirschvink, USA, Geology, California Institute of Technology Joseph A. Burns, USA, Planetary Sciences, Cornell University Kensei Kobayashi, JAPAN, Dept.of Chem.and Biotech, Yokohama Nat.Univ. Alexander S. Erokhin, CANADA, Organic Catalysis, Moscow State U. Bernd M. Rode, AUSTRIA, Inst for Inorganic & Theor Chem., U. Innsbruck Yuzuru Husimi, Prof., D. Sc., JAPAN, Functional Materials Sci, Saitama Univer Hiroaki Sawai, JAPAN, Faculty of Eng., Dept.of Chem., Gunma University Jean Heidmann, FRANCE, Astrophysique, Observatoire de Paris-Meudon Yu-Fen Zhao, CHINA, Bio-organic Phos Chem Lab, Tsinghua University Boris F. Poglazov, RUSSIA, Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Moscow J. I. Lunine, USA, Lunar and Planetary Laboratory Vladimir A. Otroschenko, RUSSIA, Bach Inst Biochemistry, Leninsky Prospekt Anastassia Kanavarioti, USA, Biochemistry, Univ. of California SC Phillip S. Skell, USA, Organic Chemistry Prof Emeritus, Penn St Anatoly D. Altstein, MD, PhD, DrSc, RUSSIA, Viral Genetics, Inst. Gene Biol. Wolfgang M. Heckl, GERMANY, Crystallography, University Munchen Tairo Oshima, JAPAN, Life Sciences, Tokyo University Michael J. Russell, SCOTLAND, Geology & Applied Geology, Univ.of Glasgow Allan J. Hall, SCOTLAND, Dept of Archaeology, University of Glasgow Daniel Segre, USA, Membrane Res & Biophysics, Harvard University Saverio Alberti, ITALY, Head, Lab of Exper Oncology, CMNS Liliane Merle, FRANCE, Biopolymers & Membranes, U. Rouen CNRS David S. Wilson, USA, Molecular Biology, Harvard Medical School Avshalom C Elitzur, ISRAEL, Chemical Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science Hiroshi Mizutani, JAPAN, College of Bioresource Sciences, Nihon University Auguste Commeyras, FRANCE, Organic Chem, Universite de Montpellier II Vladimir N. Kompanichenko, RUSSIA, Instit for Complex Analysis, Khaborovsk Virginia Trimble, USA, Astronomy Department, University of Maryland Rocco L. Mancinelli, USA, NASA Ames Research Center, SETI Institute Alam T. Kamaluddin, INDIA, Professor, Dept.of Chemistry, Univ.of Roorkee Evgeny I. Klabunovskii, RUSSIA, Asymmetric Catalysis; Russian Acad. of Sci Vladimir A. Basiuk, MEXICO, Inst Ciencias Nucleares, UNAM Nathalie A. Cabrol, USA, Planetary Sciences, NASA Ames Research Center Daniel L. Gilbert, USA, NINDS, Unit on Ros, National Institutes of Health Vlado Valkovic, CROATIA, Institute Ruder Boskovic, Zagreb Mitchell K. Hobish, USA, Consulting Synthesist, Baltimore, MD Walter L. Bradley, USA, Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M University Emanuel Margoliash, USA, Biological Sciences, University of Illinois Almaz A. Iskakov, KAZAKSTAN, Dept. of Medbiophysics, Medical Academy Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D., USA, Molecular Biology/Geology, SWAU Marina N. Fomenkova, USA, Astrobiology, University of California, San Diego Janice L. Bishop, USA, SETI Institute, NASA Ames Research Center Miloje M. Rakocevic, YUGOSLAVIA, Chemistry, University of Nis Vera Kolb, USA, Dept.of Chemistry, Univ.of Wisconsin-Parkside Mitchell D. Schulte, USA, NASA Ames Research Center, CA B. I. Kurganov, RUSSIA, A. N. Bach Inst of Biochemistry Olivier Toussaint, BELGIUM, Cellular Biochemistry and Biology, U. Namur Gavin W. Chan, USA, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Washington University Robert E. Blankenship, USA, Biochemistry, Arizona State University Paul Abell, USA, Dept.of Chemistry, Univ.of Rhode Island Yves-Henri Sanejouand, FRANCE, Centre de Recherche Paul Pascal Andrew S. Garay, USA, Dept.of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M Univ. Farid Salama, USA, NASA Ames Research Center, CA John D. Sutherland, UK, Department of Chemistry, University of Manchester Shuguang Zhang, USA, Dept.of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. L. Allamandola, USA, NASA Ames Research Center Jan P. Amend, USA, Earth & Planetary Sci, Washington University James W. Brown, USA, Dept.of Microbiology, North Carolina State Univ. Ricardo Ferreira, BRAZIL, Departamento de Quimica Fundamental, UFPE Krishnan C. K. Nair, INDIA, Rad Biology Div, BhaBha Atomic Res Centre Donald E. Brooks, CANADA, Pathology, University of British Columbia S. Vijayakumar, USA, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Raik-Hiio Mikelsaar, ESTONIA, Genetics & Molecular Path Inst., Tartu Univ. Ricardo Amils, SPAIN, Biologia Molecular, Univer. Autonoma de Madrid Anastasios A. Tsonis, USA, Mathematical Sciences, Univ. Wisc-Milwauk Martino Rizzotti, ITALY, Dipartimento di Biologia, Padova Bernard Barbier, FRANCE, Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire, cNRS Charles B. Thaxton, USA, Natural Sciences, Charles University Thomas G. Waddell, USA, Dept.of Chemistry, Univ.of Tenn. at Chatanooga Bernd R.T. Simoneit, USA, College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sci. Oregon St.U. Alain Figureau, FRANCE, Institut de Physique Nucleaire Stanley I. Goldberg, USA, Dept.of Chemistry, University of New Orleans Lajos Keszthelyi, HUNGARY, Biophysics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Arvydas Tamulis, LITHUANIA, Head, T.M.E.R., Inst.Theoret.Phys.& Astron. J. M. Kaper, USA, Beltsville Agricul Res Center Retired Changfu Wei, USA, Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Germinal Cocho, MEXICO, Instituto de fisica, UNAM Sergei A. Seleznev, KAZAKSTAN, Medical Biophysics, Med.Acad.,Astana Ragnar Osterberg, SWEDEN, Chemistry, The Swedish Univ. Agri. Sci H”rdur Kristjansson, ICELAND, Isteka-Lyfjaverslun Islands hf., Grens. V. Sitaramam, INDIA, Biotechnology Department, University of Poona Ricardo Garcia-Pelayo, SPAIN, Centro de Astrobiolligia, INTA John F. Stolz, USA, Dept.of Biological Sciences, Duquesne University Brian D. Lanoil, USA, Astrobiology, California Institute of Technology Lisa Y. Stein, USA, Biochemistry, California Institute of Technology James R. Lyons, USA, California Institute of Technology Lea Cox, USA, Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology Roger R. Hill, UK, Resrch Dir., Dept.of Chemistry, The Open University D. H. Ardell, USA, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University Pierre Sonigo, MD, PhD, FRANCE, Genetique des Virus, Inst Cochin Gen Mol Andree C. Ehresmann, FRANCE, Faculte de Mathematiques et d'Informatique Georges Trinquier, FRANCE, Lab de Physique Quantique, IRSAMC-CNRS A. E. Lyubarev, RUSSIA, A. N. Bach Inst of Biochemistry Narcinda R. Lerner, USA, SETI Institute, NASA Ames Research Center V. J. Norris, FRANCE, Laboratory of Microbiology, Universite de Rouen Kawamura Kunio, JAPAN, Dept.of Applied Chem., Osaka Prefecture Univ. Rosemarie Swanson, USA, Dept.of Biochemistry, Texas A&M University Friedemann Freund, USA, NASA Ames Research Center, CA Michael R. Rampino, USA, Department of Biology, New York University William A. Dembski, USA, Mathematics, Philosophy, Baylor University Jean-Christophe Plaquevent, FRANCE, Univ. Rouen, Lab. Chimie Organique Mario Medugno, ITALY, Instit per la Pianificazione e Gestione J. Seb Gillette, USA, Department of Chemistry, Stanford University Timothy A. Kral, USA, Dept.of Biological Sciences, Univ.of Arkansas Martin A. Schoonen, USA, Dept.of Earth,& Space Sciences, State Univ. of N. Y. A. Hochberg, ISRAEL, Biological Chemistry, The Hebrew Univ of Jer Hans-Peter Herzel, GERMANY, Institut fur Theoretische Biologie Regis Courtin, FRANCE, DESPA./LAM, Observatoire de Paris-Meudon R. Holliday, AUSTRALIA, CSIRO Division of Molecular Sciences Emma L. Bakes, USA, NASA Ames Research Center Roger Douglas Keen, NEW ZEALAND, Mobil Oil (NZ) Ltd. Christof Bohler, SWITZERLAND, Fluka Chemie AG, Industriestrasse 25, Buchs Frank D. Drake, USA, SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA L Varetto, BELGIUM, Centre for Protein Engineering, University de Liege T. Greg Dewey, USA, Depart of Chemistry/Biochemistry, Univ of Denver Robert H. White, USA, Dept.of Biochemistry, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. Jean Schneider, FRANCE, Observatoire de Paris, Place Jules Janssen DS Dwyer, USA, Louisiana State University Medical Center Allan G. Lindh, USA, U.S. Geological Survey Pedro Miramontes, MEXICO, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, Cd. Universitaria Enrique Macia Barber, SPAIN, Fisica de Materiales, Ciudad Universitaria Janos K. Lanyi, USA, Dept.of Physiol.& Biophys., College of Med., Univ.CA M. B. Chaley, RUSSIA, Bioengineering, Russian Academy of Sciences G. Kurat, AUSTRIA, Mineralogische Abteilung; Naturhistorisches Museum Wien Panagiotis A. Tsonis, USA, Department of Biology, The University of Dayton D. J. Raine, U.K., Department of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Leicester Pier Luigi Orioli, ITALY, Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Florence Juli Pereto, SPAIN, Departament Bioquimica, Universitat de Valencia X. Xia, CHINA, Department of Ecology and Biodiversity, Univ. Hong Kong Kimiko Umemoto, CANADA, Vancover, BC Department of Chemistry, ICU Marco Franchi, ITALY, Animal Biology & Genetics, Univ. Florence Charles N. McEwen, USA, Chemistry Depart, E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Shijun Ren, USA, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Univ. Southern California M. A. Jimenez-Montano, MEXICO, Fisica y Matematicas, U. Americas/Puebla Iwona Mroz, POLAND, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Wroclaw Alfonso Jimenez-Sanchez, SPAIN, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Genetics Sebastian Mendez-Alvarez, SPAIN, Biol Fonamental, U. Autonoma de Barcelon W. Schutte, THE NETHERLANDS, Math & Nat Sciences, Leiden Observatory Harold P. Klein, USA, SETI Institute, Palo Alto, CA Eric J. Lien, USA, Dept. of Pharm. Sci, School of Pharmacy, USC James D. Bashford, AUSTRALIA, Physics Department, University of Tasmania Bruce N. Runnegar, USA, Dept. of Earth & Space Sciences, UCLA

You needed to read a little further Jeff.

Because it's in accord with the evolutionists' agenda?

And what would "our" agenda be?

And yeah that is an argument from authority.

8-)

My "evidence" is the position of Einstein, who was a fair to middling scientist. Dennett quotes Einstein extensively on his scientific insights. But when it comes to Einstein's conclusions about the origins of the universe itself, Dennett falls silent on that subject.

Many other scientists see no conflict between science and religion. Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton come readily to mind. There are many, many others. In short, I see no conflict between religious views of whatever stripe, and sound scientific investigation in the lab.

My evidence for the absence of a fatal conflict between those two aspects of the human condition is extensive. But using Einstein as the first example is like walking into court with a single precedent, but that one comes from the Supreme Court and was unanimous.

It doesn't guarantee that position is correct in a vast theoretical sense. However, it is a good leg up that it is not ipso facto wrong. LOL.

John / Billybob

I had to leave for awhile and haven't had time to catch up yet. I see you have the usual democrat position that a mistaken statement (if such there be) be hysterically proclaimed a lie.

And what would "our" agenda be?

Well, since evolutionists always "know" the agenda of IDers, let me just hazard a guess as to what the agenda of *some* evolutionists could be: to deny the existence of God.

This notion that only IDers have an agenda but evolutionists are as pure as the driven snow is baloney. It reminds me of the liberal media myth that "environmentalists" couldn't possibly have an ulterior motive. What "agenda" could an environmentalist possibly have other than the clean up the environment? Ya, right.

You are right. We couldn't prove it was from an intelligent source just as you can't prove ID. Thank you.

Outside of mathematics, is it possible to prove anything? You certainly can prove something to be false, but proving something to be true is quite another thing.

In the example given, it seems highly improbable that the entire text of Macbeth could be produced randomly. The probability that it is from an intelligent source would be very high. That may not be absolute, ironclad proof, but it comes close.

Things get more interesting when the probabilities are not so high. What if you received a transmission of what appeared to contain the text of Macbeth, but 1% of the words were garbled or missing? The probability that it came from an intelligent source would still be quite high. What if the error rate were 10% or 20% or higher? At what point do you conclude that no intelligence is involved?

As I recall, Demski's work dealt with these kinds of questions. (It has been a long time since I looked at his book.) I am not sure that he answered the questions. His work will have been valuable if it motivates other people to consider the problem.

I had to leave for awhile and haven't had time to catch up yet. I see you have the usual democrat position that a mistaken statement (if such there be) be hysterically proclaimed a lie.

Let's see. You got caught posting a lie and you try to impune my motives? I think that is rule #2 the communists had: When attacked, always attack the character of your attacker, defame him by implying he is not a member of the immediate parties so his peers will believe he is evil.

You get caught and you don't apologize - why you are still implying that it is true! Oh my God!

But you take it a step further and insinuate that no possible test could provide evidence for intelligent design.

Nope. Not insinuating. Hypothesizing.

If ID is scientific, it must work within the scientific method. My proposition ID is not scientific because there is no possible test exists to provide evidence of ID.

All you have offered and will offer towards proving that ID is a science are straw-man arguments and wise ass comments.

Note: Arguments against evolution are not arguments for ID.

(It has been a long time since I looked at his book.)

I hope you didn't waste good money on buying it.

At what point do you conclude that no intelligence is involved?

AFter reading hundreds of creo posts, I conclude that no intelligence is involved in their posts.

I hope you didn't waste good money on buying it.

No, the library bought it.

But your response surprises me. You sound more like a partisan in a heated debate, not an open-minded seeker of knowledge.

As I recall, Demski examined the question of how we might distinguish mathematically or statistically between random and deterministic events. It is not a trivial issue. The answer would be of interest outside the creation-versus-evolution controversy.

I am a little hazy on his work—I will have to get his book and look at it again.