Detecting Intelligence

The title and first paragraph are from one of Dembski's blog entries. My comments are in italics.


'Detecting Design — that’s not science; Detecting Intent — that’s science'

"How is it that when cognitive psychologists and computational intelligence engineers detect user intent, they are doing science, but when ID theorists detect design in biological systems, they aren’t? There’s a double standard here. ID might fail as a science — methods of design detection might be defective or fail to yield a positive result, but to say that their application does not even constitute science, as Judge John E. Jones III ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover, is on its face ludicrous. Consider the following letter from a colleague:"

If their application does not constitute science then a decision has been made in advance that purely natural forces (devoid of evidence of intelligent input) are capable of generating desired outcomes. Judge Jones did what every clever evolutionist does- ignore the weakest link in their chain of evidence. Pretend that a case exists in favor of evidence for the origin of life, which on the face of it, excludes rational consideration of intelligent causality. Talk about evidence for evolution and consider abiogenesis the embarrassing step-child to be avoided in polite conversation. Abiogenesis is relegated to a separate area of study enabling evolutionists to claim that evidence for it may be inadaquate but we will find it eventually. In the meantime let's discuss common descent. It's an article of faith on their part not to be confused with solid scientific evidence.

An intelligent inference can be made at any point in the process. Take heed Judge Jones and your fans.