I wrote earlier:
But of more immediate interest is Dembski's identification of
the assertion to be established, "that living things exhibit
actual specified complexity". Dembski asserts in "Science and
Design" and later in "Intelligent Design" that this is so, but
as Richard has pointed out, there are no examples given by
Dembski where he "[did] the calculation", as Dembski commands
at the end of "The Design Inference". The references that
Paul gives may have contributed to Dembski's development of
his Design Inference, but since one of Dembski's claims is
that his Design Inference is a novel and rigorous methodology,
it follows that those other references cannot be claimed to
shed light on whether "actual specified complexity" is found
as a property of living systems. That has to be done either
by Dembski or someone applying his Design Inference
specifically.
I should note here that it is critical that Dembski be
involved in this demonstration, either performing the
calculations himself, or certifying that any calculations done
meet with his approval. During the flap over the Polanyi
Center at Baylor University earlier this year, it seemed to be
a refrain sung by both Dembski and Gordon that their critics
had misunderstood them. The way to properly resolve this is
not to simply accuse the critics of misunderstanding, but
rather to demonstrate what a correct understanding of the
method yields. Richard's insistence upon worked-out examples
is a simple and clear means to this desired end. Given
Dembski's exhortation to "do the probability calculation" on
p.228 of TDI, one would hope that Dembski has already worked
out a variety of examples in detail that would support his
claims made concerning the application of TDI to biological
systems. If this is not the case, it is also important to
know upon what other basis Dembski is making those claims.
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 18:39:22 EDT