WAD>P.S. In Tower of Babel, Rob Pennock attributes the phrase
WAD>"specified complexity" to Norm Geisler ("What Mount Rushmore
WAD>and DNA Have in Common," 1986). Just to set the record
WAD>straight, Norm got it from Charlie Thaxton (Mystery of Life's
WAD>Origin, 1984, pp. 130-31), and Charlie got it from Leslie
WAD>Orgel (The Origins of Life, 1973, p. 189).
My copy of "Tower Of Babel" has the following on page 251:
[Quote]
Dembski and the authors of Pandas are not the first to make
this sort of argument. Norman L. Geisler is the first I know
of who outlined all its elements. He put forward the argument
in a written debate that appeared in Creation/Evolution in the
mid-1980s. After pointing out that we would infer that the
faces on Mount Rushmore were created by an "intelligent
primary cause" because they convey "complex information,"
Geisler notes that "DNA has specified complexity in its message...
[and] it is our regular, uniform experience that specified
complexity results from an intelligent cause."
[End Quote - R Pennock, Tower of Babel, p.251]
There is no attribution of neologism for "specified
complexity" to Geisler within the complete paragraph.
Additionally, the footnote cited at the end of the paragraph
has some bearing upon the issue.
[Quote]
68. Although Geisler appears to be the first to sketch the
whole argument, it is only fair to point out that he picked
up the key notion of specified complexity of DNA from Charles
Thaxton, et al. (Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen 1984, p. 130),
and that Thaxton was academic editor of Pandas. Thaxton in
turn credits (Yockey 1977).
[End Quote - R Pennock, Tower of Babel, p.392]
If there is an attribution of neologism for "specified
complexity" to Geisler elsewhere in Tower of Babel, that would
establish an inconsistency on Pennock's part. I don't recall
seeing any such in my reading, though, so I think it is up to
Bill to produce a page number where this occurs.
Wesley