Joined: Jan. 2007
|Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 19 2009,10:54)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)|
| † † |
† † †
|P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isnít a pro-ID article but that itís about something else (Iíve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.|
What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing" †latched or proper Weasel?
And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now.
He actually looks at both the latched and unlatched (or is that quasi-ratcheted?) versions, although not by name. †And he only associates WEASEL with the latched version.
The underlying message is the same one that's been discussed before - one can measure the difference in success between a blind search an a particular search algorithm as "active information", and this should be used to characterize search algorithms.
There's no real criticism of Dawkins, but we know how this is going to be used...
ETA: The only link in the article is that D&M cite The Blind Watchmaker as a reference for a partitioned search. †Complaining to the editors will look a bit anal, I suspect.
Agreed. †My only point was that his citation is false, and that he is deliberately obfuscating what WEASEL is, and what Dawkins said about it. †This is not actually fundamental to his paper. †
The larger point is that this paper is worthless. †As Good Math / Bad Math pointed out, it follows this form:
|But that's not what Dembski is claiming to say. Dembski is saying that the program implicitly contains the solution.|
Why does it implicitly contain the solution? Because Dembski says so. Seriously - that's what his argument reduces to. He defines the active information in a system in terms of how that system performs in a search. Then he shows that the amount of information that results from doing the search is equal to the amount of active information in the search algorithm. It's a trick of definitions, obscured by a lot of pointlessly complex math. In essence, it reduces to making a blind assertion: information is conserved; therefore any system that can in any sense produce information must contain that information.