Come on now. This guy is a working mechanical engineer, & he pretty much recapitulates Behe, and the rest of the current crop of darwinian naysayers, and his big falsifiable test for ID is to search for "Kilroy was here" encoded in some musty corner of the genome.
Really...you meant electrical engineer? Maybe his PhD in communications science escaped your vast knowledge? I see you ignore his message theory history. Let's face it, his mathematical credentials likely beat yours any day of the millenia...
he pretty much recapitulates Behe, and the rest of the current crop of darwinian naysayers,
I see you haven't read him, since you are 100% wrong as the book is a critical survey of the anti-creationists in the origins debate. Manifestly you aren't conversant with his treatise, let alone scientifically open-minded.
and his big falsifiable test for ID is to search for "Kilroy was here" encoded in some musty corner of the genome.
Read the book. Then you will stop mindlessly disparaging that which you should be studying...
A small quote from the preface should help you apprehend that your mistakes:
"The reader should not assume I align myself with the present body of creationist literature--on most occasions my disagreement with it is substantial. I have also been dismayed by evolutionists, who, for reasons of their own, felt unmoved to respond to the creatinists' legitimate arguments until prodded by multiple cases of serious legal action. This is a sorry but perhaps realistic view of how "science" often operates. I believe science can only benefit from the dialogue on origins. I disagree with those nay-sayers who declare the sky will fall if we lend an ear to the creationists. An an adversarial diaologue, responsibly undertaken, can only improve our science and understanding."
I should also mention that here in the Minnesota academic scene, that evolutionary pugilist PZ (little Paul) Meyers (from UofM Morris) FLEES at the approach of Remine, whom he cannot begin to refute effectively. Chicken. And he is your best. Has issues with his impoverished childhood in Washington state, hence he apparently blames the Universe or God for them, and thus tries to get back at God, by denying him. Pathetic.
Well, not only is that not a prediction (because it is not derived from a logical argument) but it isn't testable because the notion is too ill defined. Is he being more specific than I infer from your comments?