Dembski, quoting Moorad Alexanian:
One can similarly say of Darwinian Theory of evolution, “I see evolutionary theory as not a theory–only a set of curious conjectures in search of a theory. True, it has great explanatory power, but a viable theory must have more than that. It must make predictions which can be falsified or confirmed.”
I am glad that at least Dembski is accepting the explanatory power of evolutionary theory, so now the question is merely, does evolutionary theory make predictions which can be falsified or confirmed.
However, a more urgent issue has been raised, namely, ID not only lacks explanatory power but also fails to make any non-trivial predictions.
We all remember Dembski’s admission that
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”