[ml1954]

How does Dembski's illustration not apply?

I'll stand on the obvious... Science is not chess. It is not a game. Showing something is not possible within the rules of a game doesn't prove or demonstrate anything. Or are we going to redefine 'game' now ;)

[DC Bound]

The parallel is that in the natural world, there are phenomenon that don't fit naturalistic explanations. That is not to say science is a game--it is saying the rules of science aren't competent to describe everything, all the time, when science is limited naturalistic explanations. Unless I'm missing something really obvious, the only logical retort is to deny these phenomenon exist, or to admit science needs to grow to be able to address them. What am I missing?