William Dembski gets material in two peer-reviewed publications

Questioninggeller

Illuminator
Q
Joined
May 11, 2002
Messages
3,048
William Dembski mentions on his blog that he and engineer Robert J. Marks have "Two forthcoming peer-reviewed pro-ID articles in the math/eng literature." Is is really impressive to talk about "intelligent design" in engineering journals? I hope engineers design with intelligence.

He then linked to drafts of the article, which don't mention intelligent design in biology, cosmology, etc. One is about "methodology to various search tools widely used in evolutionary search" regarding the conservation of information and another is uses the No Free Lunch Theorem. Dembski's use of the No Free Lunch Theorem has been utterly demolished so it'll be interesting to see the outcome of these articles.

Here are the drafts and interestingly nowhere in these drafts does "intelligent design" appear.

In sum, I guess this means the creationists still have no peer-reviewed articles in biology, paleontology, cosmology or anything relevant to the natural sciences. And I'm not surprised.

At the bottom:
William Dembski said:
*For obvious reasons I’m not sharing the names of the publications until the articles are actually in print.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Paper 1, abstract (no more is posted):


Abstract: A search algorithm consists of a search space, a target, an oracle (or source of information), available computation resources (with implicit or explicit limits), and an initialization. The initialization is often random and the resource limits are often measured in maximum allowable oracle queries. A programmer's job is to craft an algorithm that best spends the available computational resources to attain the target. The algorithm must make judicious use of its computational resources. According to No Free Lunch theorems for search, average performance of an arbitrary search does no better than blind search. Domain expertise is therefore essential in crafting the search algorithm. The effectiveness of a given algorithm can be measured by the active information introduced to the search. Some search algorithms use oracles poorly. We show this specifically for the case of Hamming oracles and partitioned search. Other algorithms proposed in the literature are too difficult to evaluate analytically and require Monte Carlo simulation. The Avida and ev algorithms are evaluated and shown to use oracles rich in information.
Click to expand...

Offhand, this looks potentially useful, but possibly very boring. Could be the equivalent of taking a single problem and firing different analysis methods at it, which is useful but limited.


Abstract: Conservation of information theorems indicate that any search algorithm performs on average as well as random search without replacement unless it takes advantage of problem-specific information about the search target or the search-space structure. Combinatorics shows that even a moderately sized search requires problem-specific information to be successful. Three measures to characterize the information required for successful search are (1) endogenous information, which measures the difficulty of finding a target using random search; (2) exogenous information, which measures the difficulty that remains in finding a target once a search takes advantage of problem-specific information; and (3) active information, which, as the difference between endogenous and exogenous information, measures the contribution of problem-specific information for successfully finding a target. This paper develops a methodology based on these information measures to gauge the effectiveness with which problem-specific information facilitates successful search. It then applies this methodology to various search tools widely used in evolutionary search.
Click to expand...
This is an abstract with an axe to grind, but they do publish those.

The full text of the articles would be interesting to look at, but I'm not seeing it.
 
Last edited:
Incompetent articles, such as these, can slip though into engineering journals rather easily because reviewers usually pass something they don't understand.

So it means nothing that barely-literate ID-woo papers get into an engineering journal.

Engineering is a TRADE not a SCIENCE.
 
BenBurch said:
Incompetent articles, such as these, can slip though into engineering journals rather easily because reviewers usually pass something they don't understand.

So it means nothing that barely-literate ID-woo papers get into an engineering journal.

Engineering is a TRADE not a SCIENCE.
Click to expand...
Okay, just to check. You read them?
 
Two forthcoming peer-reviewed pro-ID articles in the math/eng literature.
Click to expand...

Of course, it only counts in math and english. In other words, ID only seems to work sans evidence (math is all a priori), and when you trick people into believing it with bad language (english lit).

It's just the "look how many engineers we have on our side" stuff all over again.
 
Questioninggeller said:
Look below the abstract, on each page, where it says "[ pdf draft ]". Full "Conservation of information" draft and "The Search for a Search" draft.

Edit to add: "Intelligent design" does not appear anywhere in either article.
Click to expand...

All indicators are that positive mentioning of the phrase Intelligent Design is banned from peer-reviewed publication, regardless of the quality of the research.

I.D. has Darwinists scared ****less, and for good reason. The more we learn, the stronger the positive case for I.D. becomes, both via increased signs of design and a decreased likelihood that the blind forces of nature could accomplish what crackpots like Richard Dawkins and his flock of sheep claim they can.

True Skeptic's Fact of the Day: The design paradigm is the future of biology, including evolution.
 
True Skeptic said:
All indicators are that positive mentioning of the phrase Intelligent Design is banned from peer-reviewed publication, regardless of the quality of the research.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. BS is banned from peer-reviewed publications.

I.D. has Darwinists scared ****less, and for good reason. The more we learn, the stronger the positive case for I.D. becomes, both via increased signs of design and a decreased likelihood that the blind forces of nature could accomplish what crackpots like Richard Dawkins and his flock of sheep claim they can.
Click to expand...
Nope. You can keep claiming this and it will continue to just show your ignorance and delusion. Biologists threat ID with as much respect as Nessie and Bigfoot hunters.
True Skeptic's Fact of the Day: The design paradigm is the future of biology, including evolution.
Click to expand...
Sure. If you mean human designed biological molecules, pharmaceuticals, life and genetics, that's all already happening.
 
True Skeptic said:
All indicators are that positive mentioning of the phrase Intelligent Design is banned from peer-reviewed publication, regardless of the quality of the research.
Click to expand...

Nice conspiracy theory. What is your evidence? Did the League of Atheists for International Control get together and impose a worldwide ban on that or was it the New World Order?

True Skeptic said:
I.D. has Darwinists scared ****less, and for good reason. The more we learn, the stronger the positive case for I.D. becomes, both via increased signs of design and a decreased likelihood that the blind forces of nature could accomplish what crackpots like Richard Dawkins and his flock of sheep claim they can.
Click to expand...

Oh please. It's only crackpots that make wide-sweeping claims without evidence. That is why creationists are crackpots.

What in these papers demonstrates your point?
 
BenBurch said:
Engineering is a TRADE not a SCIENCE.
Click to expand...
No it's a science. The irony of which is that some of those sciences are being used by biologists now.
Incompetent articles, such as these, can slip though into engineering journals rather easily because reviewers usually pass something they don't understand.
Click to expand...
Well it depends on what journal. Ironically, I didn't realize that IET had a journal for biology.
 
Last edited:
Questioninggeller said:
William Dembski mentions on his blog that he and engineer Robert J. Marks have "Two forthcoming peer-reviewed pro-ID articles in the math/eng literature." Is is really impressive to talk about "intelligent design" in engineering journals? I hope engineers design with intelligence.
Click to expand...

Global warming deniers use the same ruse, find a minor journal that isn't really to do with the subject, maybe someone sympathetic to your point of view sits on the panel, bingo, published.
 
True Skeptic said:
True Skeptic's Fact of the Day: The design paradigm is the future of biology, including evolution.
Click to expand...
Before that can happen, you will have to answer at least one of the following questions:

1) How can Intelligent Design be applied to medical research, to help us understand and fight disease?

2) How can Intelligent Design help us develop conservation strategies for endangered species?

3) How can the Intelligent Designer apply himself to agriculture to help us develop more efficient crops yields?

If I.D. really is the way of the future, I expect spectacular answers to at least some of those. Darwinian Evolution is already way ahead of you, and shows no sign of stopping: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47


(ETA: I assume you are not referring to only human designed pharmaceuticals and such, that Paximperm brought up.)
 
Last edited:
True Skeptic said:
All indicators are that positive mentioning of the phrase Intelligent Design is banned from peer-reviewed publication, regardless of the quality of the research.

I.D. has Darwinists scared ****less, and for good reason. The more we learn, the stronger the positive case for I.D. becomes, both via increased signs of design and a decreased likelihood that the blind forces of nature could accomplish what crackpots like Richard Dawkins and his flock of sheep claim they can.

True Skeptic's Fact of the Day: The design paradigm is the future of biology, including evolution.
Click to expand...
HEY LOOK, it's Ben Stein! And he still doesn't know anything.

1. Present why you think there is positive and strong case for ID.
2. Show the existence of the designer. What is the designer? How does the designer design?

3. What is a Darwinist?

I learned all about evolution, and nothing about Darwin, when I studied biology courses.

4. What are the "blind forces" of nature?

Natural selection is far from "blind".

Sheep? Jeebus has the proud sheep, and Dawkins doesn't want any.

Your strawman is weaker than most. But, I'd like to see you try to address #1-4 in some manner.
 
True Skeptic said:
All indicators are that positive mentioning of the phrase Intelligent Design is banned from peer-reviewed publication, regardless of the quality of the research.

I.D. has Darwinists scared ****less, and for good reason. The more we learn, the stronger the positive case for I.D. becomes, both via increased signs of design and a decreased likelihood that the blind forces of nature could accomplish what crackpots like Richard Dawkins and his flock of sheep claim they can.

True Skeptic's Fact of the Day: The design paradigm is the future of biology, including evolution.
Click to expand...
What's the weather like on your planet?
 
Say, true skeptic, are you skeptical of ID? You don't appear to. In fact, you don't even seem to be familiar with the objections to ID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom