Sometimes I wish I could give some of you a tour of the ID world, of the long version of the FAQs and primers posted on the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, of the Center for Science and Culture, and through the many scientists who support ID.
Your assumption that all of us on the Evo side are simply unfamilar with the details of ID is unwarranted.
I am a Catholic physicist. As such I'm not ill disposed toward ID as a philosophical idea. However, I have actually taken the trouble to carefully read not just the ID material aimed at popular audiences, but Dembski's technical works themselves.
I find too many fatal errors in his work to regard it as scientifically valid. Just to touch on the main ones briefly,
1) He has a tendency to employ statistical computations that rest on invalid assumptions, and seems in many instances to fundamentally misunderstand or misapply such concepts as conditional probability.
2) He seems to not understand the difference between Shannon information and Kolmogorov computabilty. He repeatedly employs these concepts as though they were interchangeable, where they are decidedly not.
3) He does not present scenarios for observational or experimental tests or falsifications of his ideas.
I'm sure you can find more scientific criticisms in ID specific threads on this board.
One last question - are you Protestant or Catholic? If the latter, why are you so opposed to the idea of evolution when the Church indcluding Pope JP II does not regard it as incompatible with Catholicism ?
™ Version 4.2