You are not addressing my point ( calling me Dembski as a potshot isn't helping the discussion either ).
The point Dembski is making is that proponents of materialistic evolution invariably invoked as evidence for their theory experiments in which structures of biological interest evolved reproducibly. But for the results of an experiment to be reproducible, they must occur WITH HIGH PROBABLITY.
Thus, if high probability confirms evolutionary theory, shouldn’t, by parity of reasoning, low probability disconfirm evolutionary theory?
If not, the theory is insulated from empirical falsification.
Demski for instance, offers as an example the original success of the Miller-Urey experiment in origin-of-life research and the subsequent failure of that origin-of-life research to explain information-rich biomacromolecules.
These are the kinds of "testability" experiments that can be done to confirm/disconfirm Evolution ( and by implication, intelligence ).
If you are not Dembski, why do you publish his work under your name?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1650646/posts