Chris Cogan wrote to Richard Wein:
RW>I really want to see calculations that have been done to
RW>*Dembski's* satisfaction, since only Dembski can reliably
RW>say whether they are bona fide applications of his methods.
CC>This would only be true if he has not clearly and/or
CC>completely specified his method. If he *has* clearly and
CC>completely specified it, it should be applicable by anyone
CC>who can do the needed calculations. If this cannot be done,
CC>then it may indicate a flaw in Dembski's method or its
CC>presentation.
That is one issue, but not the only one. As I pointed out
before, simply saying that the critics misunderstand Dembski's
work is not going to resolve the issue. If Dembski produces a
set of examples that show, in detail, his
complexity-specification criterion being applied to
non-trivial cases (especially those relating to his claims
about biology), then we not only have Dembski's assertion that
the critics misunderstand, but also a demonstration of what a
correct understanding of the technique produces. Without
Dembski's certification, we are reduced to one of those flat
fitness functions wherein the critics try something and
Dembski pronounces, "No, that was not it." Let's see what
"it" is for certain.
Now for another issue. Dembski claims to be doing science,
and saying that his claims that DI finds CSI in biology are
science. Scientists make their data available for review.
The data for Dembski's claim that the application of *his*
complexity-specification criterion finds that the complex,
information-rich systems of biology have CSI has not yet been
made available for review. Coupled with Dembski's claim that
his DI is a *novel* and rigorous formulation, it follows that
either Dembski must have this specific data or must certify
that the data provided by another person is the data he was
citing as the basis for his published claim. It also follows
that if pre-TDI and none-DBB examples are proffered, that two
of Dembski's claims will have been abandoned as false: 1) the
claim of novelty and thus priority for the DI and 2) the claim
that Behe's IC examples have CSI.
This claim that complexity-specification applied to biology
shows design looks like it may be ID's "cold fusion". Where's
the data?
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 00:30:57 EDT