From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views:
We last checked in with Robert Lawrence Kuhn of the PBS series Closer to Truth as he interviewed physicist and Nobel laureate Brian Josephson who said he was “80 percent” sure of intelligent design. (BOOM.)
These aren’t brand new interviews by Kuhn, but still very interesting – and concise. Now, submitted for your Labor Day enjoyment, here’s one, pointed out by a Facebook friend, with mathematician William Dembski. Dr. Dembski briefly defines the method of detecting intelligent design. It is, he says, a form of triangulation on the effects of intelligence, namely contingency, complexity, and specification. The last of those refers to the question of “Does it conform to some sort of independently given pattern?”
Kuhn, not an ID proponent as far as I know, shrewdly notes that ID doesn’t seek to “prove” God, of the Bible or any other gods, but it is consistent with what you’d expect from a Deity. I find that distinction to be stubbornly lost on many ID critics. More.
Of course it’s lost on them! Dealing with the realities of design in nature would be conceptual work. By contrast, anyone can run around shrieking through a loud-hailer and stirring up a base. And they can often get government to fund it.
Who knows, one of these days, the jig may be up.
See also: Data basic