Just when you believe that ID activists could not shoot themselves in the foot any further, Casey Luskin comes to the rescue, and Dembski decides to add some fuel to the smoldering fire. So what is going on this time that ticked of our friends at the Ministry of Media Complaints at the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Religion? At Red State Rabble, Pat Hayes and at the Austringer Wesley Elsberry explain Casey Luskin’s misplaced ‘outrage’ and show how once again, poor reading and listening skills (see also my previous posting about Dembski mangling Darwin) allow ID activists to create yet another strawman.
While ID is busy with their theological arguments, science is still waiting patiently for ID to present a scientific case ever since ID was found and ruled to be scientifically vacuous.
Enjoy.
I emailed Dr. Miller about this matter and here is his response (he gave me permission to post it):
Dembski still seems to think that, in addition to low probability, “specification” is necessary to infer design. But he doesn’t justify his calculations of probabilities and he doesn’t justify who gets to specify or how some specification is determined to be relevant. His probability calculations assume processes of assembly that no one believes, yet he continues to ignore this. Why does he think that the appearance of all the various organisms we see in Nature imitates his example of the purposeful construction of an English sentence with a bunch of stones? Who decides that purpose is involved? What does he think evolutionary processes are aiming for? What does he think would happen if evolutionary history were rerun? Would any resulting creature be justified in declaring it was the specified outcome of the process, or just the ones we see currently existing on planet Earth? How do his results change if life is discovered elsewhere?
It still doesn’t appear that Dembski is addressing any real issues. By now he should have done enough reflection to cross-check himself. He apparently has not. He still seems to be propagating the same misconceptions and dodges that are rampant among his followers.
Does anyone know why this has come up now?
The documentary in question is over a year old (I think).
BTW, Jeremy… My compliments for going to the source (Dr. Miller).
I had watched the video tape.
Dr. Miller was right, the editing job made it seem like he was talking about Dr. Dembski’s EF.
Can we talk about science now?
Provoking Thought
Mark Chu-Carroll of Good Math, Bad Math also rubs Luskin’s nose in it: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/20[…]tes_clue.php
The DI is always a little slow on the uptake.
Took them ~year to get bitchy with Chris Mooney over ‘The Republican War on Science.’
Maybe before they get mad at someone, they give him a trial period so the Unnamed Intelligent Designer had a chance to strike him down with lighting? I mean, it wouldn’t be POLITE to assassinate his character before giving chance to the party who was (according to them) REALLY offended.
Lest anyone think that this is a neat “liberal-conservative” debate, it has been 7 years since Paul Gross compared their antics to that of the far left. If they did reply at all, I’d bet that it was no more than a baseless “Gross misunderstands ID” whine before moving on to safer turf.
Re “I mean, it wouldn’t be POLITE to assassinate his character before giving chance to the party who was (according to them) REALLY offended.”
Why would the presumed party need additional time if he/she/it wanted to smite (or whatever) the culprit? ;)
Henry
Because Jes…The Designer works in mysterious ways, except when it comes to biology, in which case he clearly doesn’t use evolutionary mechanisms.
Have you got other reference about that, please. Kourech
Update