Joined: Jan. 2007
Sal thinks Dembski has "outrun" his critics who point out that in calculating the supposed "CSI" of the bacterial flagellum, Dembski *neglects to integrate over all the combinatorial possible ways to formulate a flagellum out of it's component pieces*, and *utterly fails to take into account any sort of step-by-step development of the flagellum* (he assumes it arises out of thin air), and that his calculations have been utter crap for the past 15 years.
|By your comments here, your assessment is out of sync with his latest work. He is not ruling out that there are other possible distributions, but rather points out the information content those “improved” distributions would have relative to the equiprobable one.|
Bull, Sal. Dembski neglects to incorporate the fundamental (n choose k) terms that he points out are integral to the Caputo example (the reason being that we do not know how to calculate such expressions for any biological entities), and his mathematics are based on de-novo generation of full modern flagellum from component parts without gradual steps - i.e. without evolution.
Whatever Dembski's "latest work" (where is that by the way - on the same page as the Jesus Tomb Math?), I can guarantee that he has failed to overcome these basic first-year probability / biology critiques of his work.
|I’m afraid Dembski has outrun his critics and they are shooting at the earlier form of his ideas some 15 years ago. He has since evolved his ideas, and they are more virulent and resistant to what the critics can throw at him these days.|
It's amazing how fast Dembski runs when he's not busy publishing anything.
Edit: Although I should admit that I love the description of Dembski's new ideas as "virulent":
1 a : marked by a rapid, severe, and destructive course <a virulent infection> b : able to overcome bodily defensive mechanisms : markedly pathogenic <virulent bacteria>
2 : extremely poisonous or venomous
3 : full of malice : MALIGNANT <virulent racists>
4 : objectionably harsh or strong <virulent criticism>
Maybe I should refer to ID as "scientifically vacuous, and virulent" from now on?