Intelligent design holds to three tenets:My, my! ID is the un-science. It seeks to undiscover by bad models and selective data what we have already learned or may ever learn about unguided evolution and anything else unguided.1. Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.[2.] Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.
3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.
... By contrast, intelligent design nowhere attempts to to identify the intelligent cause responsible for the design in nature ...Gee! It also openly promises to erect nothing in evolutinon's place. (But of course that's where the creationists hope to come in.)
These differences between intelligent design and scientific creationism has significant legal implications for the advancement of intelligent design in the public square ...I'm sure Dembski means that the differences have implications. And how convenient that the science of "We Know Nothing Except That Something Intelligent Designed It" is not a religion and avoids language aimed at creationism!
It's almost like a cynically-crafted "Wedge Strategy."
Intelligent design is compatible with both a single origin of life (ie., common descent or monophyly) and multiple origins of life (ie. polyphyly).
"In fact, we can make it as vague as we need so anyone can imagine he's hearing exactly what he likes."
Each of these scientists opposes the sufficiency of the mutation-selection mechanism on scientific grounds.
For an absolute fact, Dembski mischaracterizes Gould with this generalization, probably also Prigogene who is often misquoted by creationists. I don't know Kaufmann or Eigen.
Bingo!