RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
franky172



Posts: 158
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2007,12:57   

Quote (Rob @ Aug. 01 2007,11:01)
Quote (franky172 @ July 31 2007,22:28)
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.

     
Quote
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.

Sal's current position is that the only hypothesis that needs to be eliminated is pure random chance.  This implies that anything that's a product of law or law+chance is ultimately designed.  He bases this on Dembski's NFL-based notions.  It's a crazy claim, and it flatly contradicts the EF, which does not ascribe products of law to design.  If you try to pin Sal down on this contradiction, he'll disappear, as he did here and here.

Far from rising above their critics, Dembski and Sal are merely becoming increasingly confused and self-contradictory.

Two things:

First of all, this reliance on the idea that "if something is unlikely to happen under the uniform distribution, then it's CSI" is mind-numbingly idiotic.  Even for IDers.

Second, note that Sal didn't even suggest that Dembski had "risen above" or "replied to" his critics.  No.  Dembski *out-runs* his critics.

That virulent guy.

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]