At 01:15 AM 09/16/2000, you wrote:
>Wesley again
>
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=532248147
>
>"Dembski's article, "Explaining Specified Complexity",
>critiques a specific evolutionary algorithm. Dembski does not
>dispute that the solution represents CSI, but categorizes the
>result as "apparent CSI" because the specific algorithm
>critiqued must necessarily produce it. Dembski then claims
>that this same critique applies to all evolutionary
>algorithms, and Dembski includes natural selection within that
>category.
>
>The question all this poses is whether Dembski's analytical
>processes bearing upon CSI can, in the absence of further
>information from inside the "Algorithm Room", decide whether
>the solution received was actually the work of the intelligent
>agent (and thus "actual CSI") or the product of an algorithm
>falsely claimed to be the work of the intelligent agent (and
>thus "apparent CSI")?
>
>If Dembski's analytical techniques cannot resolve the issue of
>possible cheating in the "Algorithm Room", how does he hope to
>resolve the issue of whether certain features of biology are
>necessarily the work of an intelligent agent or agents? If
>Dembski has no solution to this dilemma, the Design Inference
>is dead."
Chris
It was stillborn anyway.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 11:29:19 EDT