William Dembski gets material in two peer-reviewed publications

[Wowbagger]

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

I would like to point out that a lot of papers (real ones) that describe various nuances of evolution do not mention the specific word "evolution", either.

Scientists say that's because it should be bloody obvious that the paper is about evolution. (Imagine a paper in a dentistry publication that reminded the reader, every-so-often, that everything discussed takes place in the mouth.)

But, that doesn't stop the creationists from harping on that fact.

 

[CFLarsen]

an oracle (or source of information)

God.

and an initialization

God's hand.

A programmer's job is to craft an algorithm that best spends the available computational resources to attain the target.

He just can't get away from the idea that humans are the end product. There has to be a target.

This is a code, people. He avoids calling it "Creationism", he avoids calling it "Intelligent Design", he avoids calling it anything.

But the same crap is still there.

 

[Questioninggeller]

I would like to point out that a lot of papers (real ones) that describe various nuances of evolution do not mention the specific word "evolution", either.

Scientists say that's because it should be bloody obvious that the paper is about evolution. (Imagine a paper in a dentistry publication that reminded the reader, every-so-often, that everything discussed takes place in the mouth.)

But, that doesn't stop the creationists from harping on that fact.

The link supplied in Dembski's post claimed the papers are "pro-ID." Now, if something is in support of an idea like intelligent design (which is presumably why he wrote the articles), not just a "nuance" of the idea, in order to establish it as a theory one expects that intelligent design be mentioned and defined in the paper. Intelligent design is much different than established fields, like denistry and evolution, which have proven mechanisms. Authors of articles in such fields use terminology that is synonymous with those fields/proven mechanisms related to that subject. If intelligent design articles don't do that then papers' theses are not directly tied to the idea nor do they establish the idea with support in the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[joobz]

Engineering is a TRADE not a SCIENCE.

As an Engineer who Publishes in Engineering Journals and science journals, this is utter Bollocks.

It all depends on which journal is being published in. Not the class of research being done.

 

[CapelDodger]

He just can't get away from the idea that humans are the end product. There has to be a target.

And the target had to be humans. That is their perennial problem. They are too in love with themselves to conceive that we are a product of chance. And if history's anything to go by (which it is) we either have successor species or we're an evolutionary dead-end. Either way, extinction beckons.

This is a code, people. He avoids calling it "Creationism", he avoids calling it "Intelligent Design", he avoids calling it anything.

But the same crap is still there.

And nothing else, however it's dressed up.

 

[CapelDodger]

The link supplied in Dembski's post claimed the papers are "pro-ID." Now, if something is in support of an idea like intelligent design (which is presumably why he wrote the articles), not just a "nuance" of the idea, in order to establish it as a theory one expects that intelligent design be mentioned and defined in the paper.

Since it isn't, Dembski has to explain why the papers are pro-ID. His bald claim that they are is hardly sufficient.

Of course this is all about Dembski's imps and minions being able to screech about him having "peer-reviewed pro-ID papers", which no doubt they're already doing.

 

[hgc]

God.

God's hand.

He just can't get away from the idea that humans are the end product. There has to be a target.

This is a code, people. He avoids calling it "Creationism", he avoids calling it "Intelligent Design", he avoids calling it anything.

But the same crap is still there.

The target: Back to Oracleville. Live forever, like a god. Full circle - one spin (unless you're Hindu or otherwise reincarnationist).

 

[Questioninggeller]

One article is out in IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society and here's the citation:


William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, vol.39, #5, September 2009, pp.1051-1061.

Go here for the citation.

Dembski proudly posted a link on his blog, but when a few people commented about how the paper misrepresented Dawkins' work, Dembski responded:

10 William Dembski
08/19/2009 11:46 am

NS: Get a textbook on general relativity, and you will typically find a math textbook devoted mainly to Riemannian geometry. So by your reasoning, it actually isn’t about the structure of spacetime.

ppb: And the environment creates the information required for evolution to successfully locate a target how? Lots of environments lack the active information to conduct successful targeted searches.

I’m growing weary of these quibblings and thus shutting the comments off.

 

[AndyD]

Evolution has targets? When did that happen?

It sounds a bit like rainwater seeking out exactly the right depressions to make puddles in specific shapes. I guess God makes those depressions in the right shapes to start with.

 

[Robster FCD]

True Skeptic,

I am a scientist and teach undergrad biology.

I am only afraid of ID from the point of view that any students who are ID believers will need extra tutoring to catch up.

ID isn't even a new failure, but a repackaged old failure from the late 1800s.

 

[~enigma~]

It's just the "look how many engineers we have on our side" stuff all over again.

Maybe Dembeski thinks emulating Dick Gage from ae911truth is a good thing

 

[CoolSceptic]

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.

It's funny, but among the most common examples of what science have given the world is computers and modern medicine.

Computers were mainly developed in exactly the type of journals you are currently criticising. Medicine is also a TRADE and, therefore, by your own definition not a SCIENCE either.

Or perhaps your definitions are kinda bad.

Here's the story: bad papers get published everywhere, in engineering research journals, in medical research journals, even in Nature. Can you believe that? Peer review isn't perfect.

Another viewpoint, sometimes people just write mediocre bland articles with little or no content, that get published, and then write press releases that claim these articles prove something that doesn't get a mention in the original articles, and doesn't logically follow.

And then following on from that, some people in their own little ivory towers start a my-science-is-better-than-your-science bunfight that belongs in the school playground.

Just saying.

 

[Questioninggeller]

I just noticed Dembski removed one post from his thread announcing the paper. Before there were ten (as my quote above shows), but now there is only nine.

Why do creationists have to censor their critics instead of arguing scientific points...

 

[PixyMisa]

Replied to an eight-month-old post. Never mind.

Seems Dembski is up to the usual tricks.