> "Well, the ID proponents certainly hope to show that this theory IS testable
> scientifically, don't they? Isn't that what Dembski's argument is trying to
> accomplish (even if you think he fails to do so)?"
>
> Dembski's error is in the specification of his "filter" as well as in the idea that there basically is only a choice between evolution or
design. That he uses Behe's argument about IC, an argument which has been shown to be erroneous, only further undermines his position.
Could you point me to any online critiques of Behe's argument of which
you are aware. I've only come across one so far.(not that I've made an
extensive search)
Randy Bronson