Patrick
Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 07 2011,03:58) | | Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 06 2011,13:58) | Barry "Dog Botherer" Arrington comes up with yet another definition of CSI:
| Quote | irreducible complexity, which is a subset of CSI
|
I'm reminded of the story of the two little boys who find a ten dollar bill on the street and go into a nearby shop to spend it. The first little boy is busily loading his arms with candy when the second little boy comes up with a box of tampons. "Why would we want those?" asks the first boy. The second boy excitedly points at the box and explains "Look, we can go swimming and horseback riding and bicycling . . . ."
CSI: Protection for those days when the flow of reality is just too heavy. |
The subset of CSI notion goes back to Dembski's "No Free Lunch" and his bacterial flagellum example there. What he "calculates" there is not aimed at being an example of applied CSI, but rather is supposed to be a demonstration that IC fits within CSI. That's why he skips over any attempt to apply his then-current rules for specifications, relying on Behe's identification of bacterial flagella as being IC. |
Interesting. I thought it was a straightforward category error on Barry's part. IC is a claim about the structure and possibly history of a pattern, but CSI is supposedly about probabilities or information or something measured in bits.
I need to stop trying to find consistency in IDCist assertions.
|
