Intelligent Design proponents often pull a bait and switch when discussing the detection of design. On the one hand they argue that ID contributes to science since it adds the concept of design to science, on the other hand when pressed for examples to support their claims, they point to science making successful design inferences as evidence of the validity of design detection. How can this be? On the one hand ID is portrayed as adding something to science, on the other hand science is argued to already have these concepts.
Of course ID proponents further muddle the issues by confusing Dembski’s design inference as being relevant to how science detects design. On ARN, Salvador is showing all the signs of these confusions as he tries in vain to address the critiques raised by Dayton, Charlie and RBH.
Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 50, column 116, byte 4903 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187