"The important scientific strategy of rendering theories testable by finding independently justified auxiliary propositions does not work for mini-ID. We have no independent evidence concerning which auxiliary propositions about the putative designer’s goals and abilities are true."
"It could just as well be rendered:"
"The important scientific strategy of rendering theories testable by finding independently justified auxiliary propositions does not work for evolution. We have no independent evidence concerning which auxiliary propositions about mutation and natural selection’s goals and capabilities are true."
I'm not sure why you think the two statements are in any way equivalent.
The Designer is assumed to be an intelligence capable of designing and producing such changes in DNA that humans are the result. ID assumes that we can identity the result of that bit twiddling through the bit twiddling and subsequent production techniques. For us to differentiate between a natural process and the Designer's work we necessarily need to know the Designer's goals (ID relies on identifying intent) and abilities (manufacturing indicators). Since these are necessary to define a difference between naturally occurring and designed features they are valid requirements for auxiliary propositions. As Sober explains in his article those auxiliary propositions need to be independently evidenced to avoid problems in logic. On the other hand, both mutation and NS have been examined closely enough to give us a fair bit of independent evidence from which to propose predictions.
Your restatement is not equivalent to Sober's.
"But of course, I already agree with the ID side of things."
The bias is obvious.
"On the other hand, both mutation and NS have been examined closely enough to give us a fair bit of independent evidence from which to propose predictions."
Really. Here's a hint that we don't define the capabilities of M&NS: What in biology can M&NS *not* do? We already found evidence that all kind of body types came into quick existence at the Cambrian explosion, many of which do not exist today. We know that the human brain came into existence from thousands of fast and focused changes across the human genome in a way that "categorically different" from M&NS at large. We know ecologies are balanced carefully across the planet and introducing foreign species wreak havoc on the local environment. We know of creatures that live in symbiotic mutualism. We know of creatures that haven't changed in millions of years. Yet M&NS can apparently perform miracles.
Despite some postings about ways to disprove M&NS, without specifically defining a boundary in biology between what it can and cannot do, these statements fall flat. It is in the same boat as "mini-ID" is in the paper.