Joined: Dec. 2002
|Quote (zygotecowboy @ Dec. 20 2002,18:10)|
|There isn't too much too this article, but one thing struck me:|
|William Dembski argues that the way we detect design is by looking for an unlikely (high information) state of affairs which matches a pre-existing pattern. The pattern which must be matched is called a "specification." Thus, the notion of specified complexity or complex specified information is simply lots of information which conforms to a specific pattern. |
In biology, some systems have many interacting parts and are thus complex (high information).
First, CL is equating unlikelihood with "high information". He then does the same thing with complexity and "high information" again. Now, I'm fully aware that WAD has defined complexity as the inverse of probability, but is it fair to equate any of these to "high information"
(whatever that means)?
They seem to be conflating the vernacular sense of complex with Dembski's specific usage which means low probability - "high information" in their words.
All Dembski has offered is a formalisation of what Creationists have been banging on about for years, which is most notoriously framed in the "tornado in a junkyard" analogy. The advantage for the IDers is that the word "information" lends an unwarranted aura of sophistication to their argument because they get the chance to refer to information theory.