Posted: Mar 28, 2011 5:45 pm
This CSI nonsense thing is the same crap Tsar tried pushing until his meltdown. What it really boils down to is the claim that evolution can not produce the increase in functional information (using the J. Szostak definition of the term) required to produce extant biodiversity, from the proposed origin of life around 3.8 billion years ago, until now, given our estimates of past and extant population sizes.
Essentially, he was trying to argue that, although Natural Selection can produce an increase in information, it can do no better than a random search, and a random search could not produce extant biodiversity in 3.8 billion years even given a colony of bacteria the size of the observable universe.
Essentially, the error lies in claiming that Natural Selection can do no better than a random search. This is simply demonstrably wrong. Tsar tried dodging all the facts thrown at him by constantly referring to Dembski's use of the "No Free Lunch Theorem", in which Dembski argued that all simulations of evolution are "smuggling the solution in through a back door" to get around it. Even this is demonstrably wrong. This has even been pointed out to Dembski, who, upon realizing it defeats his argument, simply reasserted the claim in an even more convoluted and purely obfuscatory, semantic way. It doesn't matter to him that it's false, as long as it remains sufficiently convoluted and sciency sounding, then it's enough for the "flock" and we subsequently get people like Tsar pushing the bullshit here and elsewhere.
I get a headache trying to assemble Tsar's wibblings on the subject into a coherent argument, he ran around in circles so much it was really incredible.
In any case, I think the best handlings of these insane ramblings and obfuscations have taken place on th Panda's Thump blog, where pretty much all of Dembski's bullshit has been debunked. I'm glad that page exists, in the beginning I really didn't understand much of the shit he was pushing until I went there and read all of the posts on things like evolutionary searches, searching algorithms etc. etc.
Good stuff, I would recommend it to anyone who runs into that type of "algorithmic instructional information"-wibble we see from time to time.
There is no end to the amount of bullshit terms they will make up to keep the facade that they are competent scientists on a mission from gawd.
Essentially, he was trying to argue that, although Natural Selection can produce an increase in information, it can do no better than a random search, and a random search could not produce extant biodiversity in 3.8 billion years even given a colony of bacteria the size of the observable universe.
Essentially, the error lies in claiming that Natural Selection can do no better than a random search. This is simply demonstrably wrong. Tsar tried dodging all the facts thrown at him by constantly referring to Dembski's use of the "No Free Lunch Theorem", in which Dembski argued that all simulations of evolution are "smuggling the solution in through a back door" to get around it. Even this is demonstrably wrong. This has even been pointed out to Dembski, who, upon realizing it defeats his argument, simply reasserted the claim in an even more convoluted and purely obfuscatory, semantic way. It doesn't matter to him that it's false, as long as it remains sufficiently convoluted and sciency sounding, then it's enough for the "flock" and we subsequently get people like Tsar pushing the bullshit here and elsewhere.
I get a headache trying to assemble Tsar's wibblings on the subject into a coherent argument, he ran around in circles so much it was really incredible.
In any case, I think the best handlings of these insane ramblings and obfuscations have taken place on th Panda's Thump blog, where pretty much all of Dembski's bullshit has been debunked. I'm glad that page exists, in the beginning I really didn't understand much of the shit he was pushing until I went there and read all of the posts on things like evolutionary searches, searching algorithms etc. etc.
Good stuff, I would recommend it to anyone who runs into that type of "algorithmic instructional information"-wibble we see from time to time.
There is no end to the amount of bullshit terms they will make up to keep the facade that they are competent scientists on a mission from gawd.