Here is a portion of the review by Jeffrey Shallit, on Dembski's "
No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence", under the section of "1. Mathematical Difficulties":
That's only regarding to Dembski's incompetency with maths. Shallit go on to show other problems with Specified Complexity.
Here is the
link from Shallit's review. And there are lot more to Shallit's criticism on Dembski's SC.
You brought up the origin of the eye, as one of the Intelligent Design's argument. Another criticism on Dembski maths, from Martin Nowak, in
The Evolution Wars, page 6, which is Time's article:
Meaning: You cannot have mathematical equation on the origin of the eye, if you don't have the necessary data or "information" from the physical evidence. Such equations about the origin of the eye, is bogus.
Wow a clear and direct answer that is dangerous moderators might delete your post as they did with
@Subduction Zone
I mostly agree with the critics, Demskies stuff is not supported by robust math, reply would be that this shouldn’t be a big of a deal, evolution by natural selection is not supported by robust math ether, for example you don’t know
1 how many mutations and which mutations are required to build an eye
2 what is the probability of getting such mutations
3 what is the probability that these mutations where selected by natural selection
So if the if lack of robust is not a deal breaker for evolution, why would it be a big of deal with ID?
Yes I admit that probabilities can´t be calculated with accuracy and I agree that there is not an objective spot where one can say “from this point on, it is too improbable and therefore it is CSI”
For example we can´t calculate the probabilities for a sentence to have been created as result of an explosion in a printer, but despite the fact that we can establish a specific probability we know it is too improbable to occur. Because even though there is a gray area where we cant tell is it is too improbable or not, a meaningful sentence is far beyond that gray area.
An other example , you can´t calculate the exact probability that we share the same ERVs with chimps in the same spot, but it is save to say that it could have not happened by chance.
So in summery
1 Yes I agree there is no robust math supporting ID (nor evolution)
2 the lack math is not a big of a deal
3 one can say that something is too improbable to have occurred by chance, even if you dont know the exact probability (ERVs woudl be an example)
please let me know whcih of these 3 points you deny, if you dont deny explicitly any of them, I will assume that you agree with them
I will also add that I am not defending the view that ID is a robust scientific model, I am arguing that it is a hypothesis supported by premises that are likely to be true.
You brought up the origin of the eye, as one of the Intelligent Design's argument. Another criticism on Dembski maths, from Martin Nowak, in
The Evolution Wars, page 6, which is Time's article:
No, at least for the sake of this thread, I am granting that eyes are not SC and therefore not design.
When I talk about ID I am talking about the origin of life (the origin of the first self-replicating organic thing)