Vindication

Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.

The challenge for determining whether a biological structure exhibits CSI is to find one thatbs simple enough on which the probability calculation can be convincingly performed but complex enough so that it does indeed exhibit CSI. The example in NFL ch. 5 doesnbt fit the bill. The example from Doug Axe in ch. 7 of THE DESIGN OF LIFE ... is much stronger.

— Dembski

(5) There’s a paper Bob Marks and I just got accepted which shows that evolutionary search can never escape the CSI problem (even if, say, the flagellum was built by a selection-variation mechanism, CSI still had to be fed in).

In other words, just like an intelligence feeds in CSI, natural selection can feed in CSI from the environment into the organism. CSI is not really a problem but a fallacious concept.

I think this posting is somewhat disingenuous. (Disclaimer: I accept evolution is a fact, and dismiss ID as the desperate rear-guard action of a discredited philosophy.)

I think this crowing over an admission of error is rather petty.

Consider the standard scientific process.

Propose a hypothesis. Use it to make predictions. Someone tests a prediction and shows that it is invalid, and that the hypothesis is therefore incorrect. Modify the hypothesis. Continue the loop until (a) all versions of hypothesis are shown to be incorrect, in which case you abandon it; or (b) you define a version of the hypothesis that is not rejected by testing, in which case it becomes (provisionally) accepted as correct.

IMO, (a) has already occurred, but WD is married to the hypothesis, and will require more convincing before he will abandon it.

The history of science includes numerous instances of people proposing radical hypotheses that contradicted "established truth", but who eventually were shown to be correct (the most recent I can think of is Prusiner and his prion model). Of course, a huge number of other thinkers were shown to be INcorrect....

Rather than go "nyah, nyah, you were wrong, I told you so a long time ago, what took you so long to admit it, and why are you simply modifying your hypothesis instead of abandoning it, when we KNOW you're wrong?", we should at least give WD some credit for admitting an error and proceeding to the next step.

djlactin said: I think this posting is somewhat disingenuous. (Disclaimer: I accept evolution is a fact, and dismiss ID as the desperate rear-guard action of a discredited philosophy.) I think this crowing over an admission of error is rather petty. Consider the standard scientific process. Propose a hypothesis. Use it to make predictions. Someone tests a prediction and shows that it is invalid, and that the hypothesis is therefore incorrect. Modify the hypothesis. Continue the loop until (a) all versions of hypothesis are shown to be incorrect, in which case you abandon it; or (b) you define a version of the hypothesis that is not rejected by testing, in which case it becomes (provisionally) accepted as correct. IMO, (a) has already occurred, but WD is married to the hypothesis, and will require more convincing before he will abandon it. The history of science includes numerous instances of people proposing radical hypotheses that contradicted "established truth", but who eventually were shown to be correct (the most recent I can think of is Prusiner and his prion model). Of course, a huge number of other thinkers were shown to be INcorrect.... Rather than go "nyah, nyah, you were wrong, I told you so a long time ago, what took you so long to admit it, and why are you simply modifying your hypothesis instead of abandoning it, when we KNOW you're wrong?", we should at least give WD some credit for admitting an error and proceeding to the next step.

Dale Husband said: Dembski deserves all the contempt we can throw at him.

Totally in agreement here. Dembski has not behaved like a scientist and has done nothing to earn respect. He takes petty jabs at science, accusing people of silencing, censoring his work, while, as several have testified on the EF, refusing to answer questions or accept criticism.

The EF has been like his shield for the past decade, and up until a week ago I believe it was still being used to defend ID arguments (not by him, as far as I know, but it shows how much his flock trust him).

Call me suspicious if science doesn't work that way.

Where has his tireless battle been to defend the EF? People have been telling him for years the problems with it, ways to test it, etc. Dembski's response has always basically been 'the EF is great, read my book'.

Did we ever see him use it on any example at all? You'd think if he's spent ten years testing this filter and finding out now it doesn't work, that he must have tested it on at least one entity.

If he hasn't, why the heck should we turn around now and say 'well done, you've taken a baby step', when he's been holding this up as the crown of ID for ten years?

Dembski clamis that the reason that he only publishes books unstead of papers in scientific journals is that it is "quicker". That alone should tell you that he has no academic integrity whatsoever and that he knows it and has always known it. People point out that his "math" is nonsense not because they believe that he has made an honest mistake, but because they can tell that he has always been completely dishonest.

How dishonest do you have to be in order to claim that all other scientists are completely wrong based on an equation that cannot even have a solution! Everyone knows that his foundation is simply religion, it was never about evidence or even math. An honest person would never have published anything about "CSI" anywhere without being able to at least calculate it. Never mind not having any objective criteria for what selection could and could not do. Never mind ignoring all known major molecular mechanisms. Never mind ignoring all evidence.

The guy is just a fraud fleecing easy marks. He didn't even have the guts to show up for a trial when he had already crowed about how badly the "evolutionists" would lose, that makes him a hypocrite as well. I can't think of a single reason why anyone should take him seriously about any biolgical issue.

PvM said: Although Dembski has abandoned the Explanatory Filter, he still seems to be holding on quite desperately to the concept of CSI

Dale Husband said:

djlactin said: I think this posting is somewhat disingenuous. (Disclaimer: I accept evolution is a fact, and dismiss ID as the desperate rear-guard action of a discredited philosophy.) I think this crowing over an admission of error is rather petty. Consider the standard scientific process. Propose a hypothesis. Use it to make predictions. Someone tests a prediction and shows that it is invalid, and that the hypothesis is therefore incorrect. Modify the hypothesis. Continue the loop until (a) all versions of hypothesis are shown to be incorrect, in which case you abandon it; or (b) you define a version of the hypothesis that is not rejected by testing, in which case it becomes (provisionally) accepted as correct. IMO, (a) has already occurred, but WD is married to the hypothesis, and will require more convincing before he will abandon it. The history of science includes numerous instances of people proposing radical hypotheses that contradicted "established truth", but who eventually were shown to be correct (the most recent I can think of is Prusiner and his prion model). Of course, a huge number of other thinkers were shown to be INcorrect.... Rather than go "nyah, nyah, you were wrong, I told you so a long time ago, what took you so long to admit it, and why are you simply modifying your hypothesis instead of abandoning it, when we KNOW you're wrong?", we should at least give WD some credit for admitting an error and proceeding to the next step.

You really have NO IDEA how incredibly dishonest William Dembski has been, do you? Here's a hint: Complex specified information is something that could never exist unless a human mind can interpret it. When a scientist attempts to describe a complex thing objectively, he speaks of ORDER, never information. Why? Because if you discovered an ancient text written in Chinese, but you cannot read Chinese, the text has NO information for you to consider. But it DOES have order, whether you can read it or not. (BTW, books cannot reproduce by themselves, so they are not subject to natural selection like living things would be.) Demski's use of the term "Complex Specified Information" (CSI) presumes that there was a preexisting mind to create that information. But that preexisting mind would itself be inaccessible to science and would therefore ben religious in nature, therefore CSI is also religious in nature, not science. And it is a basic assumption of Intelligent Design. Therefore, Intelligent Design (ID) cannot be science. It is religious. Therefore, teaching ID in science classrooms would be dishonest or ignorant in nature. QED! Dembski deserves all the contempt we can throw at him.

Dale Husband: "Here’s a hint: Complex specified information is something that could never exist unless a human mind can interpret it."

I have to disagree with this. My mother has a computer. It has a program called Internet Explorer on it. There is absolutely no doubt that she doesn't understand how it works, but it does work. I've seen her use it. The binary instructions in the IE program cause the computer to function as a browser.

If the last thinking being in the universe was to drop dead, then nobody would understand how it works, but if a cat walked on just the right keys, the program would continue to instruct the computer on how to act like a browser.

I have no particular problem with the concept of CSI. That IE program is complex, it's information and it's specified - it's a browser program. Similarly, DNA is complex, it's information (it instructs your body on how to function) and it's specified (it's instructions for our body, not a book on building a rock.)

What bugs me is the utter uselessness of CSI for proving there's a designer, since it's well known that evolution functions by building and maintaining the complex specified information in DNA.

Dale Husband: "Dembski deserves all the contempt we can throw at him."

I totally agree with you here.

P.L. said: Which would you prefer, the Chinese historian who described ancient Chinese writings by describing them as orderly scribing, or the Chinese historian who had learned the ancient Chinese language, and could access the information as well? Order and information are both important.

CeilingCat said: Dale Husband: "Here’s a hint: Complex specified information is something that could never exist unless a human mind can interpret it." I have to disagree with this. My mother has a computer. It has a program called Internet Explorer on it. There is absolutely no doubt that she doesn't understand how it works, but it does work. I've seen her use it. The binary instructions in the IE program cause the computer to function as a browser. If the last thinking being in the universe was to drop dead, then nobody would understand how it works, but if a cat walked on just the right keys, the program would continue to instruct the computer on how to act like a browser. I have no particular problem with the concept of CSI. That IE program is complex, it's information and it's specified - it's a browser program. Similarly, DNA is complex, it's information (it instructs your body on how to function) and it's specified (it's instructions for our body, not a book on building a rock.) What bugs me is the utter uselessness of CSI for proving there's a designer, since it's well known that evolution functions by building and maintaining the complex specified information in DNA. Dale Husband: "Dembski deserves all the contempt we can throw at him." I totally agree with you here.

I think this direct admission from Dembski, that chance, regularity and design aren't exclusive categories, so the EF doesn't work, needs to be force-fed to every creationist who's claimed that the EF is good, describes how we identify design, and disproves evolution.

Imagine a "colour filter" which identifies red things as red, green things as green and _everything else_ as blue. Its creator could spend as long as they liked pointing at TV screens and claiming that RBG is enough to cover all colours; their filter would still identify oranges, aubergines and zebras as "blue". Dembski's EF tumbles all cases of "I don't know" and all cases of natural selection (which is chance+regularity, iterated) into the "design" basket.

My own design detection algorithms (unpublished, but Nobel-worthy, trust me) tell me the sole function of the EF was to put all cases of natural selection into the "design" basket.

I see that Dembski is still a big favorite. I will just note that he has been publicly rather subdued since chickening out at Dover compared to before that. I think that hurt him and caused some serious introspection. This "baby step" as Wesley calls it is a big step for the crank personality.

Thanks for an interesting post.

Perhaps evolution supporters should build a non-disingenuous quotation list (if this hasn't already been done)featuring:

Phillip Johnson's admission that there is "no scientific theory of ID"; Dembski's current admission that the EF doesn't exclude stochastic processes; the "cdesign propnentsists" affair; the admission (I think it was Nelson or Minnich, but I could be wrong) that ID has not established a research program--along with relevant context, to show requisite integrity (which, of course, I have not done here). Any other damning admissions come to mind?

No. Well, except the Wedge Document where they basically said WE'RE CREATIONISTS AND ID WILL BE CREATIONISM IN DISGUISE.

JPS said: Thanks for an interesting post. Perhaps evolution supporters should build a non-disingenuous quotation list (if this hasn't already been done)featuring: Phillip Johnson's admission that there is "no scientific theory of ID"; Dembski's current admission that the EF doesn't exclude stochastic processes; the "cdesign propnentsists" affair; the admission (I think it was Nelson or Minnich, but I could be wrong) that ID has not established a research program--along with relevant context, to show requisite integrity (which, of course, I have not done here). Any other damning admissions come to mind?

DS said: Dembski clamis that the reason that he only publishes books unstead of papers in scientific journals is that it is "quicker".

Pete Dunkelberg said: This "baby step" as Wesley calls it is a big step for the crank personality.

Dale Husband said: Complex specified information is something that could never exist unless a human mind can interpret it.

JPS said: Thanks for an interesting post. Perhaps evolution supporters should build a non-disingenuous quotation list (if this hasn't already been done)featuring: Any other damning admissions come to mind?

SWT said: I also find it odd that Dembski finds it quicker to write and publish a book than to write and publish a series of papers, but maybe that's just me ...

Dembski cited his 2005 paper as the "new" definition of CSI. The major effort in that paper is to redefine "specification" into something vague enough to paper over the ID failure.

The point to remember is that the IDC goal is to "prove" the existance of the biblical God the Creator/Designer by finding a naturalistic feature which must have come from a supernatural source. "Complex Specified Information" was supposedly that naturalistic/material feature which can only come from God. In Genesis, it was the rainbow.

According to Behe, benificial mutations come from God, and the nasty ones are from "nature." According to Dr Dr D, he does not have to provide any example.

JPS said: Perhaps evolution supporters should build a non-disingenuous quotation list

There’s more…lots more.

Without a doubt, Michael Behe’s Dover testimony to the effect that astrology would be considered a scientific theory under the criteria that would define ID as scientific.

— James F

Behe admitting common descent between chimps and humans. Behe admitting earth being billions of years old.

— ravilyn sanders

On the subject of damning quotes, how about Dembski's own one, from the 2001 "Is Intelligent Design Testable?" article, whereby he admits that ID can accommodate all the results of "Darwinism"?

SWT wrote:

"I also find it odd that Dembski finds it quicker to write and publish a book than to write and publish a series of papers, but maybe that’s just me …"

Well just remember that publications in scientific journals have to go through that peer review thing. That might indeed significantly increase the time to publication for any of Dembski's stuff to infinity and beyond. That's how you know it's just an excuse to try to hide poor scholarship. That and the fact that you don't get royalities on the journal articles.

Never fear. Cornell double-major and ID Superstar Hannah Maxson will turn up any day now to explain how straightforward it is to apply Dembski's theorems to a relevant biological protein. Right now she's being trained in her undisclosed location by Casey Luskin and Co., sort of like Sarah Palin was briefed by the McCain campaign for a couple weeks before she gave her awesome interviews.

Is it appropriate to do some rewriting of the Wikipedia article on "Design inference" (which treats the Explanatory Filter) in the light of this? Or would that be premature?

[quote]Behe admitting common descent between chimps and humans. Behe admitting earth being billions of years old.

And admitting it consistently for at least 12 years. IMO, what’s even more damning than that is how other DI fellows who seem to disagree (e.g. Nelson and Wells) refuse to challenge him directly on either point - and vice versa.[/quote]

What right do Nelson and Wells have to censor or criticize Behe for merely expressing his opinion? It's not as if Behe said that Darwin was right or anything unscientific like that.

Thanks. Perhaps I'll start a bibliography page just dedicated to ID advocates' confessions that ID doesn't merely intend to overthrow "naturalist" science--it doesn't have, by its own admission, a replacement. Well, doesn't have a replacement from past about 100 A.D.

DS said: SWT wrote: "I also find it odd that Dembski finds it quicker to write and publish a book than to write and publish a series of papers, but maybe that’s just me …" Well just remember that publications in scientific journals have to go through that peer review thing. That might indeed significantly increase the time to publication for any of Dembski's stuff to infinity and beyond. That's how you know it's just an excuse to try to hide poor scholarship. That and the fact that you don't get royalities on the journal articles.

SWT said: If I were to speculate on alternative explanations, I would be inclined to agree that the possibility of royalites is consistent with the data we have. I also wonder if there hasn't been a decision somewhere along the way that books seem more science-y than "papers" to the public at large. After all, most high school graduates have had to write "papers" but most people haven't written a book and may well be more impressed by books (after all, they're hundreds of pages long!) than by peer reviewed articles (what?! only four pages in Science? what a lightweight!).

What right do Nelson and Wells have to censor or criticize Behe for merely expressing his opinion? It’s not as if Behe said that Darwin was right or anything unscientific like that.

— Registered User

Frank J said:

What right do Nelson and Wells have to censor or criticize Behe for merely expressing his opinion? It’s not as if Behe said that Darwin was right or anything unscientific like that.

— Registered User

I am not at all asking them to "censor" Behe or criticize him "for merely expressing his opinions." What I mean is that scientists have not only a right, but a responsibility to constructively criticize each other. And real scientists do that at every opportunity, for differences far less than those between Behe and other DI fellows.

Stanton said: [...]we tried to fact-check and present counter-claims to his drek, and he assumed that we were attacking him as though we were a gaggle of children, and he being a hapless pinata.[...]

eric said:

Dale Husband said: Complex specified information is something that could never exist unless a human mind can interpret it.

I don't think that's Dembski's main problem. I think his big flaw is that natural animal behavior can turn non-specificity into specificity. Animals with maladaptive mutations in the current environment can often shift environments or alter strategies. Those big paws make you a slower hunter on land? Start hunting in the water. Or hunt bigger prey. You were born with a thicker/thinner coat than what's optimal for your current environment? Move to a colder/warmer environment. CSI requires one to evaluate form-to-function fit, ignoring the fact that animals stuck with a 'bad form' can change behavior or niche in order to improve their function. This creates specificity. In the fitness-as-n-dimensional-landscape model, the climber can sometimes change the weights given to any specific dimension, which has the effect of altering the landscape.

You guys (and gals?) are unbelievable. Dembski adjusts his views as he often does (it's science after all, and you consider it a victory for........ atheism? Atheism might be more scientific, but it is not helped by Dembski being as rational as he always is.

I'd like to see a naturalist admit one of his (or her?) cherished assumptions.

Yeah. Right.

NS
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

Dale Husband said: The best example I can think of is hippos, already partly adapted to life in rivers and lakes, ending up with legs so weak and malformed that they can no longer come up on land, but they are perfectly formed for swimming. So, instead, they stay constantly in the water......and eventually you end up with animals resembling manatees.

Noscholar wrote:

"You guys (and gals?) are unbelievable. Dembski adjusts his views as he often does (it’s science after all, and you consider it a victory for.….… atheism? Atheism might be more scientific, but it is not helped by Dembski being as rational as he always is.
I’d like to see a naturalist admit one of his (or her?) cherished assumptions.
Yeah. Right."

The problem is that Dembski was not presuaded by the evidence or even the arguments against him, he just finally got around to admitting what has been glaringly obvious to everyone else for many years. He was wrong from the beginning. He never had a leg to stand on. Real scientists change their opiinions because of the evidence, Dembski did not.

As for cherished beliefs, sure, that's easy. I was taught that the human genome contained about 100,000 genes. After the human genome was sequenced the esitimate changed to around 30 - 40,000 genes (depending on your definition of a gene). It really hurt to think that I had been so badly wrong for all those years, but the evidence is what is important and better evidence is now available.

Creationism is never having to say you are wrong. Science is never having to change your mind unless you are presuaded by the evidence. That is the only reason anyone has a right to an opinion in the first place. Dembski never had any evidence any never even examined any of the evidence that exists. Changing his opinion now doesn't excuce his behavior.

As for atheism, I don't t recall anyone having mentioned that. Perhaps you just made that up to be inflammatory. And by the way, religion is not helped by Dembski being as "rational" as he always is either. People who find out they have been fooled by a con artist are sometimes a might ornery about it.

@notedscholar: Dembski just admitted that he's been making a mistake for a decade that people have been pointing out for a decade. You need heroes who are quicker on the uptake.

Dale Husband said: The best example I can think of is hippos, already partly adapted to life in rivers and lakes, ending up with legs so weak and malformed that they can no longer come up on land, but they are perfectly formed for swimming. So, instead, they stay constantly in the water......and eventually you end up with animals resembling manatees. BTW, the closest living relatives to manatees and dugongs are elephants. Hippos are mostly closely related to WHALES, and not to any other land mammal!

notedscholar said: You guys (and gals?) are unbelievable. Dembski adjusts his views as he often does (it's science after all, and you consider it a victory for........ atheism? Atheism might be more scientific, but it is not helped by Dembski being as rational as he always is. I'd like to see a naturalist admit one of his (or her?) cherished assumptions. Yeah. Right.

People who find out they have been fooled by a con artist are sometimes a might ornery about it.

You really should have the guts to libel him under your real name: Dave Stanton. But you are too cowardly.

Registered User said: Never fear. Cornell double-major and ID Superstar Hannah Maxson will turn up any day now to explain how straightforward it is to apply Dembski's theorems to a relevant biological protein. Right now she's being trained in her undisclosed location by Casey Luskin and Co., sort of like Sarah Palin was briefed by the McCain campaign for a couple weeks before she gave her awesome interviews.

notedscholar said: You guys (and gals?) are unbelievable. Dembski adjusts his views as he often does (it's science after all, and you consider it a victory for........ atheism?

As for atheism, I don’t t recall anyone having mentioned that.

OK, I've just visited Noted scholar's Blog and he's a parody right? I mean he has to be, right? Right? Please someone tell me that he's a parody... I mean "Kungian paradigm shift"? Howard Zinn as a LaRouchian, Dinesh D'souza is a Native American? Dump the web into a blender and this is what you get. And his "math"! Anybody's Latin still good enough to translate the subtitle of his Blog?

Please tell me PT is biting it's own tail here. Sorry this is off topic, but I just have to know...

Oh and Congratulations Mr. Elsberry!

notedscholar said: So first of all, even if my opinions are expressed in a humorous way, I hold them; second, I try to avoid being a pest, and so I don't engage in what are sometimes called "flame wars." I hope this clears things up! NS

The thing that struck me as wrong about Dembski's explanatory filter is that it presumes no overlap between regularity, chance and design, giving three or four cases instead of the condition SET logic of seven or eight cases.

Given that evolution requires at minimum regularity AND chance, Dembski seemed to me to simply be excluding it by a priori pretending its case out of existence.

I'm inclined to agree with White Rabbit that Wesley is reading too much into Dembski's post. Dembski hasn't admitted that the EF was wrong. He apparently just considers it potentially misleading. He's still pushing his CSI approach to inferring design, which is effectively the same thing. It just lumps together all "materialist" explanations as "chance hypotheses", instead of attempt to breaking them down into separate categories of "chance" and "necessity".

More interesting to me is his admission that NFL failed to establish CSI in the bacterial flagellum, despite his claims at the time of publication and afterwards that this was a convincing design inference.

The most disappointing aspect of "No Free Lunch", though, has to do with section 5.10, "Doing The Calculation". Dembski had promised, under critical questioning, to publish an example of the application of his framework for inferring design from "The Design Inference" as it would be applied to a non-trivial example of a biological system. Section 5.10 is apparently what Dembski intended to serve as payment on that promissory note. However, it fails to deliver on several points. Dembski does not establish that the example, that of a bacterial flagellum, has a specification according to the usage in "The Design Inference". Dembski also fails to enumerate and then eliminate multiple relevant chance hypotheses, as indicated in "The Design Inference". Dembski especially does not evaluate the hypothesis that the bacterial flagellum developed through evolutionary change; a curious omission given the context. The single "chance" hypothesis that Dembski does bother to consider is a marginal refinement on the old antievolution standby, "random assembly". At least, the technical jargon looks denser around Dembski's argument than I've seen around "tornado in a junkyard" presentations. But all in all, section 5.10 does little to help those who wanted to see how a design inference could be rigorously applied to biological examples.

There seem to be technical difficulties in the Internet pipes leading to the Bathroom Wall. Please ignore the trolls and keep comments topical, i.e., primarily about Dembski's recent admissions.

DS said: Dembski clamis that the reason that he only publishes books unstead of papers in scientific journals is that it is "quicker". That alone should tell you that he has no academic integrity whatsoever and that he knows it and has always known it. People point out that his "math" is nonsense not because they believe that he has made an honest mistake, but because they can tell that he has always been completely dishonest. How dishonest do you have to be in order to claim that all other scientists are completely wrong based on an equation that cannot even have a solution! Everyone knows that his foundation is simply religion, it was never about evidence or even math. An honest person would never have published anything about "CSI" anywhere without being able to at least calculate it. Never mind not having any objective criteria for what selection could and could not do. Never mind ignoring all known major molecular mechanisms. Never mind ignoring all evidence. The guy is just a fraud fleecing easy marks. He didn't even have the guts to show up for a trial when he had already crowed about how badly the "evolutionists" would lose, that makes him a hypocrite as well. I can't think of a single reason why anyone should take him seriously about any biolgical issue.

Poor Dembski. It is hard to imagine what he has to put up with from the scientific naturalists. Maybe he can take some solace from what Alister McGrath writes in his book: The Twilight of Atheism; "Rationalism, having quietly died out in most places, still lives on here (National Secular Society). Yet Western culture has bypassed this aging little ghetto, having long since recognized the limitations of reason. The Enlightenment lives on for secularists. Atheism is wedded to philosophical modernity, and both are aging gracefully in the cultural equivalent of an old folks' home:.

betty said: Without a doubt, Michael Behe’s Dover testimony to the effect that astrology would be considered a scientific theory under the criteria that would define ID as scientific. out of context quote-mining^^

Silver Fox,

I'm not an atheist or metaphysical naturalist. The victims to be given sympathy are the critics who Dembski abused over the years even though they were right.

djlactin said: I think this posting is somewhat disingenuous. (Disclaimer: I accept evolution is a fact, and dismiss ID as the desperate rear-guard action of a discredited philosophy.) I think this crowing over an admission of error is rather petty.

We know that most strings are complex in the sense that they cannot be described in any significantly "compressed" way. However, it turns out that the fact that a specific string is complex cannot be formally proved, if the string's length is above a certain threshold. [...]

phantomreader42 said: This may be the first time ever, in all of human history, that a creationist has actually abandoned a debunked argument.

This may be the first time ever, in all of human history, that a creationist has actually abandoned a debunked argument.

— pantomreader42

tomh said:

betty said: Without a doubt, Michael Behe’s Dover testimony to the effect that astrology would be considered a scientific theory under the criteria that would define ID as scientific. out of context quote-mining^^

Have you read the Dover transcript? There is nothing out of context about Behe's testimony at all.

Wes,

Speaking of vindication...

You have said nothing about how it came to pass that Dembski posted the comment he did. His acknowledgment that "Wes was right and I was wrong" is trivial in comparison to his acknowledgment that ID has failed to produce a convincing inference of design in a biological structure.

Some ID advocates are trying earnestly to make sense of things. But when they find themselves under assault, they fall back to the trenches. It is possible, with gentler engagement, to get them to ask hard questions. And Dembski cannot easily evade questions raised by his allies.

Dale Husband: "Dembski deserves all the contempt we can throw at him."

As a practical matter, hurling contempt at Dembski is counterproductive. As a personal matter, contempt harms the contemptuous. I recommend taking Jason Rosenhouse as a model of how to reach the people who want most to believe Dembski's claim that science, done right, supports what they believe on faith.

Tom English said: As a practical matter, hurling contempt at Dembski is counterproductive. As a personal matter, contempt harms the contemptuous. I recommend taking Jason Rosenhouse as a model of how to reach the people who want most to believe Dembski's claim that science, done right, supports what they believe on faith.

Wesley R. Elsberry (quoting his own published work) By my reading, biologists can embrace a conclusion of design for an event of biological origin and still attribute that event to the agency of natural selection.

Charles Darwin The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows ("Autobiography" p.87).

Richard Dawkins agrees: Why The Evidence Of Evolution Reveals A Universe Without Design (1986; book sub-title).

Wesley R. Elsberry But I guess when it comes to Dembski recognizing faults in his work, we will have to be satisfied with baby steps. Lots of critics have told William Dembski that his “explanatory filter” didn’t do what he claimed over the intervening years. This is a long-awaited moment for all of us.

With Dawkins your comments are accurate: he unambiguously
denies that the Universe is the product of Design.
With Darwin, he simply pointed out that the structures of
organisms could arise from
natural selection, that the evidence available to him
suggested they did, and claiming they were specifically
Designed was not supported by the evidence. Darwin, being
cautious almost to a fault, was careful to say nothing
that implied rejection of the idea that the Universe itself,
indeed his process of evolution by natural selection,
was the product of Design. As far as I know, he neither
endorsed nor denied the matter, leaving it for people to
puzzle out on their own.

For myself, I can entertain the "teleological argument"
that the Universe may have been Designed. I don't know
if it's true or not, but it doesn't worry me -- though
at the same time it clearly justifies no particular
religion. It also makes no real problem for the sciences, though it does make folks like Dawkins bristle.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Aha! Now I know why Dembski abandoned the EF!

You heard it first here, folks. Dembski no longer needs the EF or any of the DI's arguments. He has an advance copy of Ray's long-awaited paper. The one that will finally spell the end of "Darwinism." ;-)

iml8 said: With Dawkins your comments are accurate: he unambiguously denies that the Universe is the product of Design. With Darwin, he simply pointed out that the structures of organisms could arise from natural selection, that the evidence available to him suggested they did, and claiming they were specifically Designed was not supported by the evidence. Darwin, being cautious almost to a fault, was careful to say nothing that implied rejection of the idea that the Universe itself, indeed his process of evolution by natural selection, was the product of Design. As far as I know, he neither endorsed nor denied the matter, leaving it for people to puzzle out on their own. For myself, I can entertain the "teleological argument" that the Universe may have been Designed. I don't know if it's true or not, but it doesn't worry me -- though at the same time it clearly justifies no particular religion. It also makes no real problem for the sciences, though it does make folks like Dawkins bristle. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Ray Martinez said: The suggestion is an article of blind-faith since there is no evidence, not a shred, to support the idea. In fact, the characteristics of natural selection, "unguided" and "mindlessness" (and many others), is the positive evidence ruling out designed or set in motion by invisible Designer. This is basic stuff that you undoubtedly knew but forgot.

We can also assert that the fanatical defense of natural selection by Atheists confirms these facts since the same would never support a proposition that could be construed as supporting the existence of what does not exist (= invisible Designer).

iml8 said: To think that it would be Dembski who came over the wall defies belief, but now it doesn't seem like such an impossibility. From this side of the wall the ID intellectual structure looks like a house of cards, knock out one card and it all comes tumbling down. It happened to Glenn Morton, "a card-carrying member of the ICR", why would it be impossible with Bill Dembski?

James F said: That would be something...who would be the chief public face of ID then, Casey Luskin?

iml8 said: I say this for the umpteenth-plus-one time: I have absolutely no emotional attachment to modern evolutionary science. Whatever way the Universe actually works is fine by me, it's not like it would change if I didn't like it anyway. It just a theory. The main reason I accept it is because all the evidence I have seen demands it. The secondary reason is that if there was anything seriously wrong with it, you'd be able to come up with arguments that didn't require the implantation of Morton's Demon to believe for an instant.

Stanton said: The fanatics don't care if you're an agnostic, atheist, an apostate or an ambulatory apple pie. To them, you are nothing more a God-and-Goodness-hating minion of Evil (c) because you oppose their pet idea.

iml8 said: I am not opposed to them unless they're doing clearly crazy things (Fred Phelps comes to mind here) and even then the ideology is irrelevant, it's the crazy things that are the issue.

James F said: On a much smaller scale, I think it is high time for a Dissent from the Dissent from Darwin list, i.e., an open letter for people who initially agreed to be on the list, realized that it was being used as pro-ID propaganda, requested that their name be removed, and were denied. It could be hosted at the NCSE next to Project Steve.

Ray Martinez said: We can also assert that the fanatical defense of natural selection by Atheists confirms these facts since the same would never support a proposition that could be construed as supporting the existence of what does not exist (= invisible Designer).

It is an error to argue from the casual meanings of regularity, chance, and design when discussing causes for events classified by Dembski's explanatory filter or by TDI. Someone might seek to exclude natural selection from consideration as a source of events that meet the criteria of design by claiming that it is either a regularity or chance. But TDI classifies events, not causes. Dembski points this out himself when saying that the explanatory filter may not always conclude design for an event that we know is due to the action of an intelligent agent, for agents can mimic the results of regularity or chance.

I've responded to Ray at length in the previous thread. So far as I can tell, all Ray has is goal-post shifting and his usual miscomprehension of what has been said previously. None of that requires a response on my part, and nothing Ray has said so far shows any need for amendment of stuff I've previously written. We started with Ray explicitly declaring he didn't understand stuff I had written, followed up by Ray retracting his claim of error on my part, so as far as I'm concerned, we're done.

I wrote to our mutual friend Matt Young the other day in pepley to his question about Dembski's new position, "I have a chapter to rewrite now as well. Dembski's retraction of his EF seems to me to go a bit further than just saying it does not infallibly detect CSI.

"It (the EF) suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not."

That is more significant that his CSI crap. In book after book, Dembski has claimed that the way to detect the existance of God Himself was to eliminate Chance and Necessity and what was left was Design(er). The primary characteristic of something designed was "Specified Complexity" which he then puffed up into "Complex Specified Information." So now, he is melding chance and necessity into some aspect of design. In short: Dembski is bluffing on a busted flush.

Dembski acknowledged his error; now will you do the same? That is, admit that “design” should have been qualified?

"admit that “design” should have been qualified?"

What does that mean? Dembski used "Design" to mean The God and Lord of the universe, Holy Yahweh the Creator, El elohim. Is that the "qualification" you had in mind?

Opps, I just realized I tried to reply rationally to Ray Martinez. Sorry to all innocent bystanders.

Gary Hurd said: I wrote to our mutual friend Matt Young the other day in pepley to his question about Dembski's new position, "I have a chapter to rewrite now as well. Dembski's retraction of his EF seems to me to go a bit further than just saying it does not infallibly detect CSI. "It (the EF) suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not." That is more significant that his CSI crap. In book after book, Dembski has claimed that the way to detect the existance of God Himself was to eliminate Chance and Necessity and what was left was Design(er). The primary characteristic of something designed was "Specified Complexity" which he then puffed up into "Complex Specified Information." So now, he is melding chance and necessity into some aspect of design. In short: Dembski is bluffing on a busted flush.

PvM said:

Dembski acknowledged his error; now will you do the same? That is, admit that “design” should have been qualified?

It would be nice if Dembski would give appropriate credit. As to Wesley admitting to something, perhaps it may help if you were to first make a case that there was an error here. [SNIP....]

Ray,

I have not "ignored" your complaint; I demonstrated it to be baseless.

I'll be moving tendentious stuff to the Bathroom Wall, so you can go there if you don't want to discuss the topic of the post.

Dear Ray:

After reading your latest inane comment, I must conclude that it is entirely baseless. I think both PvM and Wesley have bent over backwards in trying to treat you with ample respect, even when your own remarks in praise of your "hero" Dembski have gone too far in the direction of hero worship. Maybe you ought to ask yourself why you are willing to support someone who - while he works at a religious seminary - seems as interested in garnering as much profit for himself as well as trying to "promote" and to "substantiate" his intellectually ludicrous ideas.

Respectfully yours,

John

I've moved the persistent misconstrual sub-thread where it belongs, the Bathroom Wall.

Ray Martinez said: I find this entire topic and discussion extremely disturbing. I really don't no where to begin, with Elsberry or Dembski. But I am going to produce a message listing my grave objections. Ray

Ray Martinez said: I have----rather plainly. Both you and Wesley have completely ignored. You have the conclusion pasted above. The case was made in previous text (not seen in your paste and cut). We all know what evasion means.

Now, to go back on topic: I find this entire topic and discussion extremely disturbing. I really don't no where to begin, with Elsberry or Dembski. But I am going to produce a message listing my grave objections.

Gary Hurd said: Opps, I just realized I tried to reply rationally to Ray Martinez. Sorry to all innocent bystanders.

DI ID is not a novel movement. They owe their science to William Paley (see Behe, 1996). I coud cite Darwin, Dawkins and Pigliucci testifying to Paley's first-rate biological scholarship. I doubt the latter two have the same respect for DI ID biology.

What is novel is their political and legal objectives----which control their interpretation and explanation of scientific evidence, and how terms are defined. For example Tony Pagano, a strong DI ID supporter, refuses to allow "special creation" to be supported scientifically, but insists the same is held true by faith alone. Pagano is, I believe, following his understanding of DI policy. But before 1859, special creation was held true by Science. The "Origin" was written as refuting special creation (Darwin 1859:6; in this passage Darwin refers to special creation as "independently created"). The point here is DI novel objectives void long established Creationism scientific criteria. The DI wants nothing to do with the word "creation" or any of its derivatives. Dembski's "specified complexity" replaces Paleyan "organized complexity." Except for Behe, the DI and Dembski want nothing to do with *Reverend* Paley.

The terms "Intelligence" and "Design" do not belong to the DI ID movement. They have been around forever. Both terms belong to Paley and British Natural Theology (1802-1859). 'DI'ists have, because of their novel objectives, corrupted the definition and understanding of both terms. "Intelligence" and "Design" are not obscure attributes of invisible Designer; they are chief characteristics. DIists presuppose them obscure, in need of "detection." Historic British Natural Theology (Creationism) says the attributes are observed plainly, seen in every aspect of nature with the naked eye.

Most important, both terms are used exclusively to indicate and correspond to Divine or supernatural agency operating in nature causing biological production. If said Intelligence and Design exist in nature then their correspondence is with supernatural agency and not natural agency or natural selection. Darwinism, like Creationism, has its own unique terms that correspond to the agency that it says is operating in nature causing biological production. "Unguided" and "unsupervised" and "mindless" and "random" and "chance" (and many others) belong to material or natural agency, describing its action. Therefore when Dembski renounces his EF citing the existence of "chance" mechanisms, he is revealing himself confused since both agencies cannot be operating in reality; it is one or the other. Since Dembski and the DI exist in a state of corruption because of their novel objectives, Dembski's confusion was bound to happen. Elsberry's celebration is unwarranted. He has made headway against straw men, corruption and subjectivity, not Creationism or Intelligent Design.

Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, British Natural Theologian.

Ray Martinez said: DI ID is not a novel movement. They owe their science to William Paley (see Behe, 1996). I coud cite Darwin, Dawkins and Pigliucci testifying to Paley's first-rate biological scholarship. I doubt the latter two have the same respect for DI ID biology.

But before 1859, special creation was held true by Science. The "Origin" was written as refuting special creation (Darwin 1859:6; in this passage Darwin refers to special creation as "independently created").

The point here is DI novel objectives void long established Creationism scientific criteria. The DI wants nothing to do with the word "creation" or any of its derivatives. Dembski's "specified complexity" replaces Paleyan "organized complexity." Except for Behe, the DI and Dembski want nothing to do with *Reverend* Paley.

The terms "Intelligence" and "Design" do not belong to the DI ID movement. They have been around forever. Both terms belong to Paley and British Natural Theology (1802-1859). 'DI'ists have, because of their novel objectives, corrupted the definition and understanding of both terms. "Intelligence" and "Design" are not obscure attributes of invisible Designer; they are chief characteristics. DIists presuppose them obscure, in need of "detection." Historic British Natural Theology (Creationism) says the attributes are observed plainly, seen in every aspect of nature with the naked eye.

PvM said: I was not too familiar with Ray Martinez, until I followed some of the talk.origins threads which lead me,as a Christian, to conclude that Ray is a bit of a lost soul.

Dembski writes:

"(5) There’s a paper Bob Marks and I just got accepted which shows that evolutionary search can never escape the CSI problem (even if, say, the flagellum was built by a selection-variation mechanism, CSI still had to be fed in)."

It is so cute how self-important creationists seem to think that their mathmagical contrivances and self-referencing and self-serving definiton games trump observation.
ReMine is like that, too.

djlactin said: I think this posting is somewhat disingenuous. (Disclaimer: I accept evolution is a fact, and dismiss ID as the desperate rear-guard action of a discredited philosophy.) I think this crowing over an admission of error is rather petty. ... Rather than go "nyah, nyah, you were wrong, I told you so a long time ago, what took you so long to admit it, and why are you simply modifying your hypothesis instead of abandoning it, when we KNOW you're wrong?", we should at least give WD some credit for admitting an error and proceeding to the next step.

This has diverged sufficiently from the topic that further discussion of "regard for Paley" should take place on the Bathroom Wall. Take it there.

Ray Martinez blithered:

I find this entire topic and discussion extremely disturbing. I really don’t no where to begin...

I suggest you begin by learning how to spell "know."

Ray Martinez said: before 1859, special creation was held true by Science.

Ray Martinez said: both terms [Intelligence and Design] are used exclusively to indicate and correspond to Divine or supernatural agency operating in nature causing biological production.

both agencies [chance and supernatural design] cannot be operating in reality; it is one or the other.

Ray Martinez said: Ray Martinez, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, British Natural Theologian.

William Dembski (1) I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.

Raging Bee said: Ray Martinez blithered: I find this entire topic and discussion extremely disturbing. I really don’t no where to begin... I suggest you begin by learning how to spell "know."

Dear Ray:

If you are trying to assert that anyone who is a Theist can't possibly accept the scientific validity of evolution, then you are sadly mistaken. The Roman Catholic Christian church is one of many which recognizes this. So do many religious scientists like Ayala and Miller. So does this Deist.

John Kwok

Ray Martinez said: We know for a fact that "chance" and "design" are mutually exclusive.

Ray Martinez said:

William Dembski (1) I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.

Why would a bombshell of this magnitude be dropped in the form of a reply to a topic at UD?

eric said:

Ray Martinez said: We know for a fact that "chance" and "design" are mutually exclusive.

Complete baloney. (snip)

If there was ever a “yellow menace,” negative numbers are it. The Chinese, the Indians, and the Muslims gave us negative numbers. Not the superior Greeks. Is this a coincidence? I think not. These countries have had a vested interest in the concept from the very beginning. Fortunately, however, negative numbers are behind a very thin conceptual veil. Once removed, it is easy to see the “Chinaman behind the curtain.”

iml8 said: I keep rolling my eyes when people like DaveScot (who actually can be a bit reasonable at times himself, incidentally), insist that ID isn't creationism.

Ray Martinez said: We can also assert that the fanatical defense of natural selection by Atheists confirms these facts since the same would never support a proposition that could be construed as supporting the existence of what does not exist (= invisible Designer).

Ray Martinez said: scientific evidence is interpreted through one of two presuppositions: Creationism-ID (= supernatural agency) Darwinism (= material-natural agency) The top paradigm presupposes Theism (the involvement of God with reality). The bottom presupposes Atheism (the non-involvement of God with reality).

Gary Hurd said: "admit that “design” should have been qualified?" What does that mean? Dembski used "Design" to mean The God and Lord of the universe, Holy Yahweh the Creator, El elohim. Is that the "qualification" you had in mind?

Dear Ray:

I don't think Wesley Elsberry is claiming that Natural Selection is the "Intelligent Designer" at all. Instead, like cell biologist Ken Miller in his latest book, Wesley is noting that the "appearance" of design in biological systems can arise naturally via natural processes such as Natural Selection. And if there was indeed an "Intelligent Designer" responsible for Natural Selection, then one ought to ask why there are ample instances of "imperfection" in Earth's biodiversity - both living and extinct - like, for example, the Panda's thumb?

If I seek an Intelligent Designer, then I don't have to go too far to admire the camera and lens designers who built my Leica M rangefinder cameras and lenses and my Contax SLR cameras and lenses. But all of these designers were fellow humans, not a deity such as a Klingon God.

Hope you demonstrate far more sense, but I think it's rather unlikely, which is why I wish you well in enjoying your membership as a...

Answers in Genesis Dalek clone,

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear Ray: I don't think Wesley Elsberry is claiming that Natural Selection is the "Intelligent Designer" at all. Instead, like cell biologist Ken Miller in his latest book, Wesley is noting that the "appearance" of design in biological systems can arise naturally via natural processes such as Natural Selection. [....]

Hope you demonstrate far more sense, but I think it's rather unlikely, which is why I wish you well in enjoying your membership as a... Answers in Genesis Dalek clone, John Kwok

Ray Martinez said:You have completely misunderstood what I wrote and its context.

ray: I accept a Old Earth, reject species mutability (I am a fixist). AiG Fundies accept microevolution like all Atheist-evolutionists and Theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller.

We have the Bathroom Wall for a reason. Please post off-topic stuff there.

Dear Ray:

Philosophically there's not a dime's worth of difference between what you and Hugh Ross believe in, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis or my "pal" Bill Dembski of the Dishonesty Institute. It's all merely mendacious intellectual pornography; nothing more and nothing less. If you do subscribe to science, then may I suggest accepting as valid, legitimate decades-old peer-reviewed scientific research demonstrating the facts of microevolution and macroevolution?

John Kwok

PvM said:

ray: I accept a Old Earth, reject species mutability (I am a fixist). AiG Fundies accept microevolution like all Atheist-evolutionists and Theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller.

In other words, you reject the facts that species do arise. Of course, good science requires one to accept the simple and obvious fact of microevolution, and of course, it's cousin macro evolution.

Dembski has reinstated the EF:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reinstating-the-explanatory-filter/

Ray

In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter in favor of just going with straight-up specified complexity. On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection.

Ray Martinez said: Dembski has reinstated the EF: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reinstating-the-explanatory-filter/ Ray

P.S. Congrats to Denyse O’Leary, whose Post-Darwinist blog tied for third in the science and technology category from the Canadian Blog Awards.

PvM said: Why take a losing position and reinstate it? Fascinating. I wonder how many ID proponents will take Dembski seriously.

Ray Martinez said: Dembski has reinstated the EF: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reinstating-the-explanatory-filter/ Ray

Ray Martinez said:

PvM said: Why take a losing position and reinstate it? Fascinating. I wonder how many ID proponents will take Dembski seriously.

Ray Martinez said: Dembski has reinstated the EF: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reinstating-the-explanatory-filter/ Ray

All scholars change their positions.

The initial appearance of announcing EF abandonment in a common reply to a topic was the first indication that the abandonment was tentative. In view of the fact that "chance" and "design" exist in antithetic agency paradigms, he really had no choice. Dembski made an error, admitted, moved on. This is the sign of a genuine scholar. I have seen Daniel Dennett and John van Wyhe do the same thing. Ray

Ray Martinez said: Dembski made an error, admitted, moved on. This is the sign of a genuine scholar. I have seen Daniel Dennett and John van Wyhe do the same thing. Ray

I wonder if somebody pointed out to Dembski, as a correspondent pointed out to me, that the way in which Dembski admitted the logical unsoundness of the EF meant that his second doctorate, the one in philosophy, had been awarded on the basis of an unsound propositional logic argument.

PvM said: Why take a losing position and reinstate it? Fascinating. I wonder how many ID proponents will take Dembski seriously.

Ray Martinez said: I accept a Old Earth, reject species mutability (I am a fixist).

Dembski should've saved that retraction for 4/1/09. The joke (intended or not) would've been funnier then.

I wouldn't be surprised at an un-retraction. Whatever Dembski's true opinon of his EF, he seems to be intentiorally using hyperbole to yank reader's chains.

Dembski wrote:

"I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not."

Well whether you dispense with the unexplanatory filter or not it is clear that chance, necessity and design are not mutually exclusive or all inclusive. Therefore any conclusions you reach with the unexplanatory filter are fundamentally flawed, whether you admit it or not. Therefore, everyone who has been pointing this out for the last twelve years was absolutely right. Dembski has now admitted that they were right. If he wants to continue to try to fool people with this nonsense that is up to him. However, now only a really uninformed person with very poor reasoning sklills would fall for it. I wonder why Dembski thinks that this approach is still worth it?

Of course the alternative would be to give back the money people paid for all of those books. This might also explain why he hasn't published any articles on the unexplanatory filter in peer reviewed journals in the last twelve years. That peer review sure can be slow.

Dear Ray:

As someone who has a M. S. degree in Statistics, Dembski should know better than to promote his intellectual pornographic notion that he's dubbed the "Explanatory Filter". It is statistically untenable. I have asked Dembski in person and in e-mail correspondence how he could calculate 95% confidence limits and he has ignored me, period (He's ignored me because he can't, since the EF is based erroneously on a uniform distribution, which is probabilistically impossible, given the random events he claims that the EF can detect.).

Now he's compounded his foolishness by going back on his "repudiation" of his EF. What do you think of his M. S. degree in Statistics then? I wouldn't think much of it if I was you.

John Kwok

John Kwok said: Dear Ray: As someone who has a M. S. degree in Statistics, Dembski should know better than to promote his intellectual pornographic notion that he's dubbed the "Explanatory Filter".

It is statistically untenable. I have asked Dembski in person and in e-mail correspondence how he could calculate 95% confidence limits and he has ignored me, period (He's ignored me because he can't, since the EF is based erroneously on a uniform distribution, which is probabilistically impossible, given the random events he claims that the EF can detect.). Now he's compounded his foolishness by going back on his "repudiation" of his EF. What do you think of his M. S. degree in Statistics then? I wouldn't think much of it if I was you. John Kwok

Ray Martinez said:

John Kwok said: Dear Ray: As someone who has a M. S. degree in Statistics, Dembski should know better than to promote his intellectual pornographic notion that he's dubbed the "Explanatory Filter".

In my opinion: the phrase "intellectual pornographic notion" is a terribly inaccurate way to describe EF rejection.

It is statistically untenable. I have asked Dembski in person and in e-mail correspondence how he could calculate 95% confidence limits and he has ignored me, period (He's ignored me because he can't, since the EF is based erroneously on a uniform distribution, which is probabilistically impossible, given the random events he claims that the EF can detect.). Now he's compounded his foolishness by going back on his "repudiation" of his EF. What do you think of his M. S. degree in Statistics then? I wouldn't think much of it if I was you. John Kwok

When one is ignored the act can be explained----objectively----one of two ways: 1. What was argued was self-evidently false, posing no threat. 2. Inability to refute. Ray

John Kwok, may I suggest you vary your attacks a little? A limited repertoire of insults does little to impress.

What is 'intellectual pornography' supposed to mean, anyway? It sounds more like a compliment to me. You seem to be implying that the DI has some kind of intellectual output, which is clearly not true.

Venus Mousetrap said: John Kwok, may I suggest you vary your attacks a little? A limited repertoire of insults does little to impress. What is 'intellectual pornography' supposed to mean, anyway? It sounds more like a compliment to me. You seem to be implying that the DI has some kind of intellectual output, which is clearly not true.

Stanton said:

Venus Mousetrap said: John Kwok, may I suggest you vary your attacks a little? A limited repertoire of insults does little to impress. What is 'intellectual pornography' supposed to mean, anyway? It sounds more like a compliment to me. You seem to be implying that the DI has some kind of intellectual output, which is clearly not true.

What he means by comparing Creationism and Intelligent Design to "intellectual pornography" is that Creationism/Intelligent Design is as intellectually stimulating as a soiled issue of Playboy.

John Kwok said: When I refer to Intelligent Design or other varieties of creationism as "mendacious intellectual pornography", I am not implying that it is as "intellectually stimulating... as... Playboy". No, I am referring to it as an entity that is intellectually obscene and quite perverse.

"Intellectual pornography" always makes me think of Woody Allen's short story "The Whore of Mensa".

Maybe it's just another way of saying mental masturbation.

When I refer to Intelligent Design or other varieties of creationism as “mendacious intellectual pornography”, I am not implying that it is as “intellectually stimulating… as… Playboy”. No, I am referring to it as an entity that is intellectually obscene and quite perverse."

Yet you seem complete obsessed by it. You remind me of the prudish woman who complained about how upset she was reading a dirty book and complained about each and every page she read.

Dear happydays:

No I am not "obsessed by it". On the contrary, I am dismayed and disappointed that most Americans have a serious problem accepting contemporary evolutionary theory as valid science. I also wish that more high school principals would emulate the stance taken by the principal of New York City's prestigious Stuyvesant High School - widely regarded as America's foremost high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics and technology - who has vowed that Intelligent Design will never be taught there as long as he continues serving as its principal.

While Stanton raises a good point in his latest comment, I would strongly encourage him and others to use the terms "mendacious intellectual pornography" and "mendacious intellectual pornographer" the next time a creo lurker stops by here at Panda's Thumb to write effusive praise saluting ID creationism or some other variant of creationism. The more people would do this, the more these inane acolytes of creationism would take grave offense of being accused - correctly - of being the purveyors of mendacious intellectual porn.

Respectfully submitted,

John Kwok

In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter in favor of just going with straight-up specified complexity. On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection.

Dale Husband said: This is just too stupid to take seriously! http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/reinstating-the-explanatory-filter/

In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter in favor of just going with straight-up specified complexity. On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection.

Dumbski (pun intended) is both lacking in the Christian virture of humility ("most brilliant inventions of all time"???) and too limited in his thinking to come up with anything truly original ("sliced bread"???). It looks like he learned how to write in grade school......and then stopped learning!

One man's pompous flatulence is another's instrument of grace, if the other is William Dembski.

So does this mean that Mr Dembski is going to finally demonstrate how to use the Explanatory Filter to quantitatively and qualitatively define the design inherent in living and extinct organisms?

Stanton said: So does this mean that Mr Dembski is going to finally demonstrate how to use the Explanatory Filter to quantitatively and qualitatively define the design inherent in living and extinct organisms?

So, in other words, Mr Dembski will deign to finally demonstrate his miraculous dog and pony show right after someone intelligently designs a flying pig.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: One man's pompous flatulence is another's instrument of grace, if the other is William Dembski.

Stanton said: So, in other words, Mr Dembski will deign to finally demonstrate his miraculous dog and pony show right after someone intelligently designs a flying pig.

John Kwok said: I rate the odds of this happening as infinitesimally small, on the order of one in a trillion:

Well I applied the EF to Santa and his reindeer. The results were not too surprising:

Sleigh - intelligently designed by humans score 59 range 45 - 65 SD +/- 8
Reindeer - designed by natural selection score 79 range 65 - 95 SD +/- 6
Flying - intelligently designed by aliens score 99 range 95 - 100 SD +/- 1

So there, the filter works just fine at detecting all kinds of design, except devine intervention. That seems to be off the charts for some reason.

I am willing to admit any mistakes in the math if anyone can show where my calculations are in error.

Good-bye, delusional troll. Responses to trolls moved to the Bathroom Wall.

PvM said: Why take a losing position and reinstate it? Fascinating. I wonder how many ID proponents will take Dembski seriously.

GvlGeologist, FCD said:

John Kwok said: I rate the odds of this happening as infinitesimally small, on the order of one in a trillion:

And what are your confidence intervals? ;^)

DS said: Well I applied the EF to Santa and his reindeer. The results were not too surprising: Sleigh - intelligently designed by humans score 59 range 45 - 65 SD +/- 8 Reindeer - designed by natural selection score 79 range 65 - 95 SD +/- 6 Flying - intelligently designed by aliens score 99 range 95 - 100 SD +/- 1 So there, the filter works just fine at detecting all kinds of design, except devine intervention. That seems to be off the charts for some reason. I am willing to admit any mistakes in the math if anyone can show where my calculations are in error.

John Kwok said: Dear DS: Why waste your time making such an inane set of calculations

That's funny, DS's satire didn't look too subtle to me...

Yea, well none of you guys can show where I made any errors in calculation, so the BS EF must work just fine. And don't worry, I didn't waste much time on it. It's a really simple calculation. Just mulitply the number of parts by the number of instructions required to assemble the parts and divide by the speed of light (which we all know is a constant).

John,

I hope you're being sarcastic in your responses to DS and me, because sure as anything, neither of us were serious in our comments.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: John, I hope you're being sarcastic in your responses to DS and me, because sure as anything, neither of us were serious in our comments.

fnxtr said: That's funny, DS's satire didn't look too subtle to me...

John Kwok said: The best known practitioner of sardonic humor is of course the bestselling author of "Angela's Ashes" (Won't say more lest someone accuses me - and correctly this time - of name dropping, especially of a longstanding personal acquaintance of mine.). Regards, John