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.
For the purposes of the scientific study of the machinery of life, yes.
"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."
Not at all. Reason, accountability, Free will and other similar objects depend upon physics for their very existence. Without the physics, there is no machine to support rational thought and exercise Free will. Those things don't exist on their own, they are creations of the machine called mind. Biologists know that those things are functions of the brain.
"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.
I said ID says they are insufficient. IDers complete them with supernatural forces in an arbitrary way. Well that's not science. If the supernatural forces can't be demonstrated so others can reliably and repeatedly examine them, then they are not a proper subject for science. Especially biology, since the machinery of life can be known and understood with physics. Physics which has shown itself to be complete and sufficient to know and understand the world.
" 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 evident at all that any choices were made. You are talking the results of function of a biological machine. You are talking about the machine which became as it is, because the physics of this world are what they are. There is no evidence whatsoever that any biological organism was designed. All the evidence points to life arising out of the physics.
"It is not an abandonment of physics to think that things were built with a purpose."
You are talking about life, so in that case it is. Purpose is not physical, it doesn't appear in the physics at all.
" Is it an abandonment of physics to think that my monitor was built with a purpose?"
It's clear it was and anyone can point to the beings that made it and examine them. It is also a dumb device, w/o life that can not arise out of the physics at all. It can't duplicate itself, nor can it support the objects of mind. The processor itself can't even do that.
" This would indicate one of two things: "
LOL... Your logic suffers from bias. You should have written and pondered (c) sentient beings do exist and they arise out of the physics of this world. That is what science holds and is the only scientific possibility, because the physics of this world is observed to be complete and consistent.
" ...sentience is something that is outside of examination altogether.
Sentience can be examined scientifically, as long as it remains an object of this world. That means the sentience that arises out of the physics.
"creationists (including myself)"
You realize that creationist means literal Gen and a 6 day creation?