More on SETI and ID
I am pleased to note that some interesting and provocative discussion has been sparked by references to my article (Can Intelligent Design be considered scientific in the same way SETI is?) in the recent issue of Skeptic.
At both The Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent can be found posts which consider the issues in the piece (it's interesting to compare the measure of thoughtful commentary vs. sarcastic dismissal in Pim Van Meur's Thumb entry and Dembski's at UD). Following each are threads with contributions that in some cases comment directly on the piece and in others discuss extrapolations from the ideas therein. Thoughtful responses arguing both in support of and in opposition to my position can be found on each site (a refreshing departure from the norm for the UD blog).
If you find the subjects (SETI, ID proponents' use of analogy with particular sciences, ID methodology) interesting check out those discussions.
Also be sure to read Seth Shostak's (real SETI scientist) opinions on the subject.