Wesley R. Elsberry's blog
Over on his weblog, William Dembski has a post making reference to an article on a means of "fingerprinting" textured surfaces, like paper. It is an interesting article. But look what Dembski has to say about it:
The Logic of Fingerprinting
Check out the following article in the July 28th, 2005 issue of Nature, which clearly indicates how improbability arguments can be used to eliminate randomness and infer design: “‘Fingerprinting’ documents and packaging: Unique surface imperfections serve as an easily identifiable feature in the fight against fraud.” I run through the logic here in the first two chapters of The Design Inference.
Well, it is a little troubling how to proceed from this point. Did Dembski fail to read the article? Is Dembski simply spouting something that ID cheerleaders can nod sagely about without regard to whether it happens to accord with reality? Whatever excuse might be given, the plain fact of the matter is that the procedure and principles referred to in the short PDF Dembski cites have nothing whatever to do with Dembski's "design inference", and cannot be forced into the framework Dembski claims.
Please send me email (firstname.lastname@example.org) to request a user account here at AE.
I've been involved in online discussions of evolution and SciCre since the mid-80's in various fora. I'm a longtime participant on talk.origins (since 1992), and the founder of the FidoNet Evolution Echo. I've contributed to the TalkOrigins Archive and am the current president of the TalkOrigins Foundation.
My major motivation in participation has been the issue of whether we will continue to teach science and only science in the science classroom.
In 1986, I attended a lecture given on YEC by a geologist. Not having much familiarity with geology, many of his arguments sounded not just plausible, but conclusive. After the lecture, I talked with the speaker, who gave me a copy of Henry Morris' "The Scientific Case for Creation". As I read that book, I started highlighting things that were pretty obviously contrafactual. I think that there are perhaps five pages total without highlighter in the book now. I also learned that many if not most of the arguments given by the original lecturer were also bogus. This helped spur me to investigate the topic further and get involved in the discussions.