@j0ey
There’s something I think you should know about “scientists” who support ID as a theory.
I once took Creationism seriously, long ago, when I didn’t know much about it yet. I don’t do that any more.
In recent history, the greatest supporters of ID have pretended under oath to be experts in things they didn’t know the first things about, willingly spread misinformation about evolution theory, willingly supported fallacious arguments anyone with a degree should be able to see through, and generally shown themselves capable of any kind of dirty trick to give laypeople the illusion that there’s any scientific credibility to the notion that the universe was created by a conscious being. They are the single most intellectually dishonest organisation I know of. And that’s quite a title.
You’ve probably been told about the scientific division between ID and evolution. In reality, there is no such disagreement. Nobody in the scientific world takes ID seriously.
There once was a serious scientific disagreement like that, after Darwin first published his ideas. When it was still a hypothesis. In the century and a half between then and now, such mountains of evidence have been found that the debate has been over for a very, very long time. And in case you couldn’t guess, Creationism lost.
Modern biology relies on evolution theory, and with that framework everything can be explained remarkably well. There is no reasonable doubt left.
If you don’t believe me, buy a scientific journal in the field of biology, any one. And then look if there’s any publication in it that does not hinge upon evolution theory. I think you’ll find that Creationists do not research anything.
And how could they? The idea is a scientific dead end. It offers no prospects for further investigation. It makes no testable predictions. It’s about as productive as giving up trying to understand, and indeed it arguably comes down to just that.
All that is left of Creationism is sophistries, lies and misrepresentations.
An example of a common Creationist misrepresentation is the idea that evolution theory says life formed the way it is “by chance”, rather than by a deterministic selection process.
An example of a common Creationist lie is the rumour that there are no transitional fossils, while innumerable transitional fossils have been found.
An example of a sophistry is that scientists can’t know what happened if they weren’t there when life formed, and god was there. I’m not even going to bother with that one.
Having learned all of that after years of seriously debating sincere Creationists, I’m not very tempted to take Dembski’s “life’s work” very seriously at all, until someone (i.e. you) can give me any reason to believe he didn’t pull those numbers out of his bum. Because I definitely wouldn’t put it past the Creationists any more to just make shit up.
Not to even mention that I’ve already explained why this number that he cannot possibly know is moot because it’s a prior probability for something that has already happened.
Making this a sophistry, based on a lie.