Joined: Dec. 2003
There are many issues that I have raised that have received no response from Dembski.
Well, for the record what avenue would you think appropriate for a public exchange with William Dembski?
Do you want him to respond with counter papers to your papers? Seriously, do want him to come out here and post to your thread?
I think a lot of what you write about his work does not represent his work or his position at all.
Your own ideas have merit, such as SAI. However, your attempts to state Bill's ideas in your own words I don't think are very charitable and end up being strawmen.
Seriously Wesley, I corresponded with Bill over some of the points I too had questions on.
What I dispute with you is things I think are as plain as day. For example my quotes form Design Revolution I think cleared some things up as far as the Davies, Orgel, and Dembski's definition of Specified Complexity. You obviously disagree, but I thought what Bill wrote in that book was quite sufficient to address a point you raised in your paper.
We're going to not resolve anything on this thread, but I want to make sure I represent your words accurately. As much as I'll be tempted to quibble, I'm probably going to let a lot of things go. I may post more elaborate responses at ARN. You are welcome to respond or not respond.
I will make an effort from now on not to make a big deal if you have no response. I am willing to do that because I see you have made an effort to respond.
State what you want from me, and what you feel is fair in this dialogue. I will do my best to keep the discourse open. If I say something over at ARN you feel is unfair, rude, or mis-represents you, you are free to challenge me on it, and I'll do my best to make amends. I'm for fair play. OK?