There have been articles containing that info on FR.
"Your description of ID is quite faulty."
My description is accurate. The "hole" you mention is that the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the observed phenominon. That hole is an artifact of faulty science, not anything real.
"The problem is not that ID finds any hole X in the theory, and at that point inserts a random diety. Instead, what happens is that ID finds a hole X in the theory, "where that hole corresponds exactly to how designers normally operate," and therefore infers that the most rational explanation that we know of so far is that there was a designer involved."
The "correspondence to design" is as bogus as the hole. The hole says the laws of physics fail to account for the observations and requires one to abandon them. It's in the abandonment of the laws of physics, that "correspondence to design" is conjured up. There's also no difference between an arbitrary designer and an arbitrary diety. Arbitrary is the keyword and anything can be molded to fit, just as everything after the abandonment of physics is.
" A design inference requires both parts to be true, not just the former as you indicate."
Wrong. All of these design inferences are obtained by first admitting failure and claiming it is impossible to ever know and understand the matter with physical laws. The inference which is probably true, is that errors were made in the original anlysis. A declaration must be made that they are insufficiennt to govern the world. Then, those same laws must be used to construct and develope the "design" claim. It's not science, it's the art of the con.
"You seem to think that teleologic arguments are excluded a priori."
Design requires a sentient being. The laws of physics are not a sentient being. They also do not contain "purpose". Also, no sentient being can be demonstrated, or examined by science.
"it is looked at as invalid if purpose is ever taken into account in those experiments themselves as a potential causitive term."
Causation is an action. Define and quantify purpose. Write down the equation for the "purpose field". How is this "purpose field" coupled to the energy field. How is this "purpose field" coupled to the stress-energy tensor, since it appears in addiiton to it?
Until you give me a link contradicting this, I see no reason to trust you over Sternberg, who said:
The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication. The reviewers disagreed on specific details but all agreed that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate.This only indicates that it wasn't "science" if you think that "science" means that everyone has to agree.
Furthermore, while I too disagreed with several important aspects of the paper, I concurred in the view that it was worthy of publication and debate. Since the time of the publication of the paper, several members of the Biological Society of Washington have told me that they found the paper "stimulating" and "informative," that it brings to the fore complex and important issues that most biologists want to avoid.
"My description is accurate. The "hole" you mention is that the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the observed phenominon. That hole is an artifact of faulty science, not anything real."
So you think that physics is a complete description of reality? In that case, you would have to abandon any notion of reason, accountability, or will, as all of them entail aspects of not only non-determinism, but choice. If physics is a complete description of reality, then choice is non-existent. If choice exists, then physics is incomplete by itself.
"The hole says the laws of physics fail to account for the observations and requires one to abandon them. It's in the abandonment of the laws of physics, that "correspondence to design" is conjured up."
This is completely contrary to fact. While many creationists (including myself) think that supernatural occurrences are a part of life and the history of life, Intelligent Design does not rely on the failure of the laws of physics for any aspect -- only their incompleteness as described above. The laws of physics do in fact describe the constraints upon which choices are made. But that does not make it a complete description of reality. And when multiple pieces are working in coordination to accomplish a goal that is accomplished by precise tasking, timing, and tooling, it is evidence that many choices were made, and all made with the end-purpose (teleology) in mind. It is not an abandonment of physics to think that things were built with a purpose. Is it an abandonment of physics to think that my monitor was built with a purpose?
"Design requires a sentient being. The laws of physics are not a sentient being. They also do not contain "purpose". Also, no sentient being can be demonstrated, or examined by science."
This would indicate one of two things: either (a) sentient beings don't exist, and therefore physics is a complete description of reality, or (b) sentient beings do exist, and therefore physics is not a complete description of reality. You then state that therefore, science itself cannot demonstrate or examine sentient beings. While you seem to have vacillated between (a) and (b) within the paper, it is a little tough for me to see which you are alluding to. Let's assume it is (b) for the moment. In this case, you are the one who is guilty of an argument from incredulity, because you believe that sentience is something which cannot be examined. While ID'ers agree that _physics_ is not a full understanding of life, they would disagree that sentience is something that is outside of examination altogether. In fact, sentience is precisely the thing under examination by Dembski and the rest. You simply say "it can't be done!" and you would halt or disparage the research of those attempting it. If your argument is in fact (a) then my response is in the preceeding paragraphs.