Here's the abstract of his argument:
Intelligent Design Theory and the Supernatural -- The “God or Extra-terrestrials” ReplyWhen proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory deny that their theory is religious, the minimalistic theory they have in mind (the mini-ID theory) is the claim that the irreducibly complex adaptations found in nature were made by one or more intelligent designers. The denial that this theory is religious rests on the fact that it does not specify the identity of the designer -- a supernatural God or a team of extra-terrestrials could have done the work. The present paper attempts to show that this reply underestimates the commitments of the mini-ID Theory. The mini-ID theory, when supplemented with four independently plausible further assumptions, entails the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer. It is further argued that scientific theories, such as the Darwinian theory of evolution, are neutral on the question of whether supernatural designers exist.
The pdf of the paper, to be published in the journal Faith and Philosophy, is available here (it's the last entry under the heading "On Intelligent Design").
Ask yourself what follows if Sober is right. I don't yet have an opinion, having only just downloaded the paper this morning (I'll read it at my daughter's orthodontist appointment later today). Does it follow that ID cannot be (a) true, (b) empirical -- that is, carry observational or predictive content like any other good scientific theory, or (c) the locus of scientific research?
No. What follows mostly, I'd say, would be implications for teaching ID in public school science classrooms, a topic on which Sober has been active lately, helping to draft the Berceau/Black legislation defining science as naturalistic for public schools in the state of Wisconsin.
In a couple of weeks, I'll be in Madison for a panel discussion (with Sober, Ron Numbers, and others) about all this, and will be able to ask Sober myself what he thinks follows from his thesis. I'll report back here.
