I like chess. But what is Dembski trying to say?
(
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Defense_of_ID.pdf) excerpt:
"It follows that the charge of supernaturalism against intelligent design cannot be sustained. Indeed, to say that rejecting naturalism entails accepting supernaturalism holds only if nature is defined as a closed system of material entities ruled by unbroken laws of material interaction. But this definition of nature begs the question. Nature is what nature is and not what we define it to be. To see this, consider the following riddle: How many legs does a dog have if one calls a tail a leg? The correct answer is four. Calling one thing another thing doesn’t make it something else."
Good example for someone with no idea what science is about. First you have to set up a definition about what is a 'leg'.
Try a: Part of a body able to move the body.
Dog on a skate board pushing him forward with his tail.
5 legs.
Try b: Part of a body able to move and sustain the body.
4 legs.
So it depends on your definitions what results you'll get. Calling something something is not science.
Question: How obtains a mathematician sheep to get on the inside of a corral?
Back to the game. Was the game chess or science? Well Dembskis comparison is faulty. He tries to compares the game of chess with nature and the rules with science. But science is not the ruler, science is a spectator. Dembski ask how to come from the initial position of chess pieces to the position Dembski gives on page 11.
Assumed a spectator figured out the standard chess 'rules' out. He would be surprised to find the constellation on page 11. But how a spectator figured out the rules of chess? By observing every single move. So the first question would be what was the position before that situation and the next how will the game go on when you come to a board with that constellation? What does we have no? A new move and therefore something were not able to describe correct at the moment. Something strange like castling. Well, that constellation you may achieve by some moves but castling happens in one move. Do you need ODIN for castling?
I want to finish with a cite of Dembski:
"Nature is what nature is and not what we define it to be." So please don't define it as complex.