Replies

C'mon! You can think of a falsification.

Yes, actually I can… As I have stated, I see ID as a ‘theory of everything’ but I will go into the world of biology (and psychology) – specifically, you. Let’s see if you believe in some kind of intelligent design.

Yes Vade, you are the next contestant on:

Who wants to be a Naturalist?
Question one:
Are variation, mutation, and natural selection ‘alone’ responsible for DNA’s intelligent grammar-like code, error correction, and beyond that – your own intellect?

Question two:
Does behavior arise out of the interaction between individuals with their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections?

Question three:
Is there is no finally correct way to behave, or finally justifiable goals, but only the desires and intentions that currently constitute us, all of which may change as human nature and cultures change?

Question four:
In seeking a coherent explanation for existence – an explanation incorporating an ontological design phase that is rational, coherent and therefore intelligent, what do you do?

Information Theory Vade, you are going to need to deal with it at some time because Darwinian explanations are becoming archaic with DNA research and life itself.

I see ID as a ‘theory of everything’

ID = "Goddidit" = theory of anything at all = theory of nothing.

Question one:
Are variation, mutation, and natural selection ‘alone’ responsible for DNA’s intelligent grammar-like code, error correction, and beyond that – your own intellect?

So far as I know.

Question two:
Does behavior arise out of the interaction between individuals with their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections?

Definitely not the latter.

Is moral absolutism tenable? Count me unsure. What I am sure is that it's not a question for biology or geology.

Question four:
In seeking a coherent explanation for existence – an explanation incorporating an ontological design phase that is rational, coherent and therefore intelligent, what do you do?

Realize that you're spouting question-begging gibberish, forget about science, and say a few prayers?

Information Theory Vade, you are going to need to deal with it at some time because Darwinian explanations are becoming archaic with DNA research and life itself.

Science uses math, but mathematicians are too ignorant of science to invalidate science. Since you're so impressed with Dembski and his demagoguery upon some misapplied math, here he is on the topic of what ID needs as a next step.

A problem we now face with intelligent design is that even if the educational mainstream opened its arms to us (don't hold your breath), we have no sustained course of study to give them. A curriculum provides that, and much more. It takes the crazy-quilt of science and systematizes it into an intellectually coherent position. Students are thus introduced to a research tradition and not merely to a disconnected set of claims and arguments, or worse yet to some effective but easily ignored criticisms. Darwinists, by contrast, have a curriculum -- indeed, one that is steadily gobbling up discipline after discipline (evolutionary psychology being one of the more visible recent additions). Daniel Dennett was right when he called Darwinism a universal acid. Darwinism's hold on the academy is pervasive and monopolistic. By building a design curriculum, we attempt to restore a free market.
Becoming a Disciplined Science: Prospects, Pitfalls, and Reality Check for ID, by Wm A. Dembski.

It's worse than he makes it sound. You have no content to put in a curriculum. You can only say what ID isn't (Evolution), how things didn't happen. (They didn't evolve.)

That's not much content and it's very likely all false. Piss-poor excuse for a science, that.

Information Theory Vade, you are going to need to deal with it at some time because Darwinian explanations are becoming archaic with DNA research and life itself.

Information Theory, has it been hijacked? (1. Intro).

Information Theory, has it been hijacked? (2. Details)

Dembski Responds.
"Response? What Response?" (Wien's counter)
For all the length of his discussion of peer review, Dembski fails to refute any of the facts that I presented (critique section 8). Most important, he is unable to name even one statistician or information theorist who approves of his work in their fields, confirming my suspicion that there are none...