Amadan
Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007
|
Interesting comment on all this by Joe Felsenstein over at PT:
| Quote | [Dembski's Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information] has been shown to be (a) unproven, and (b) of the wrong form to do what he needs it to do. And if it is put in the right form it is easily seen to be wrong.
That’s where the real body is buried in Dembski’s argument, and all the attempts to show that everything else is wrong too actually don’t help – they just distract from understanding where the real problem is in the argument. I would be interested in seeing whether Dembski could make any defense of his argument on this point (so far he has declined to, pointing instead to later arguments of his that are not about the same thing at all).
The fact that MathGrrl, as admirably as she has conducted herself, felt that the point to concentrate on was whether CSI could be precisely defined shows to me that anti-ID people have not understood the importance of concentrating on the issues involving the LCCSI. |
--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye 4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.
|
