Well, me too, and not to turn this into a physics debate, but I see little point to studying H-J formalism if not to see the connection between the classical and quantum level of Hamiltonians. Yes, the equations of motion are different, but expressing things in terms of an energy operator is the thing that ties the two together. I've certainly not used H-J since passing comps many moons ago.
I see where Poster #3 was going with his analogy, but I thought it was a poor choice of analogy.
The whole basic problem with ID is twofold:
1) As science, it's failed so far. Perhaps Dembski will address his mathematical misconceptions and errors. But I'm not holding my breath. He seems more interested in veering into the philosophical, which brings us to...
2) As philosophy, even if we develop evidence that an intelligence was involved in designing the universe...what kind of intelligence ? You can't rule out a panentheistic intelligence of the kind implied by Buddhism or liberal Christian theology like process theology on ID grounds alone. If you want to argue for the "orthodox" conception of God you are right back to faith based arguments and outside of science again. So what have you accomplished ?
™ Version 4.2
