You've missed the point.
Nope. I did not miss your point. I just find it irrelevant. It is the usual evolutionist rhetorical games. What is important in science is the truth, how it is found is not important. If you exclude possibilities out of hand like evolutionists try to do, then whatever result you come up with cannot be said to be the truth. Only when one examines the evidence without presupositions can one arrive at the truth.
Dembski managed to contradict himself in explaining what he was doing, and you find that an irrelevant "rhetorical game"? Guess what ... you missed the point. If Dembski can't keep his story straight, why should anyone listen to him?
What is important in science is the truth, how it is found is not important.
The ID numbers "game" is very important. How anyone can expect to arrive at some "truth" or other by making up a bunch of "probability" numbers without having any idea of the number of variables, how they interact or how many times, and the times frame involved is fraudulent, no more, no less.
If you exclude possibilities out of hand like evolutionists try to do, then whatever result you come up with cannot be said to be the truth. Only when one examines the evidence without presupositions[sic] can one arrive at the truth.
Spare me the homily. I am interested to see that you are now disagreeing with Newton. You claim that the only way to arrive at "truth" is by examining "the evidence without presupositions[sic]." Newton, on the other hand, said this:
If I have seen further [than certain other men] it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.That's from The Columbia World of Quotations, 1996. Sounds like Newton believed in using "presupositions[sic]."