Replies

"And the discovery of the fossils of complex creatures sans transitionals presents a problem for TOE.

What lack of transitionals?

"The motive means of a bacteria are a pretty basic function. What prior function do you think should be considered as having involved into it?

Considering not all bacteria use the flagellum as a means of motion why assume that the components of this rather complex (not basic) structure were not used for separate and different functions in the bacteria's past. BTW don't mistake the bacteria for an unevolved organism, many bacteria have had much time to undergo many changes.

"The critiques I've seen don't take issue with his math, but with the philosophy -- i.e. how can you know the probability if there may be unknown forces affecting events. That's not a scientific argument. Skeptics should phrase their doubts as "Well, Dembski's right given what is known but since his conclusions are wrong, there must be forces affecting things yet to be discovered."

The critiques I've read take him to task for misuse of probability, complexity and information. W. Elsberry and J. Shallit go so far as to correct some of Dembski's probability misuse. For some reason I can no longer find the paper. I'll dig up my hard copy and check the originating link and then send it to you.

What lack of transitionals?

shellfish, fish, vertebrates. Some say nearly every phyla made its appearance in the Cambrian. And why do you say it occurred over tens of millions of years?

But that's the point. I'm not the one making the assumption. We have this observable natural phenomenon -- the flagellum -- and some assume it evolved even though they can't explain how it did or why it should, and that such an evolution would violate the classic evolutionary model.

W. Elsberry and J. Shallit go so far as to correct some of Dembski's probability misuse. For some reason I can no longer find the paper.

Here's Shallit's website in case you need the title :-)

Here's a response from Dembski

And another