In this latest posting, the Discovery Institute shows once again why it has a well-deserved reputation for dishonesty.
The DI is touting William Dembski's No Free Lunch as "essential reading". But there is no mention that the book has received uniformly negative reviews from biologists and mathematicians, nor that the centerpiece calculation of the book, an estimate of a probability associated with the bacterial flagellum, is off by about 65 orders of magnitude. There is no mention that the definition of "complex specified information" is nonsensical and does not have the properties claimed for it. There is no mention that David Wolpert, co-discoverer of the "No Free Lunch" theorems mentioned in Dembski's book, criticized Dembski's argument as hopelessly imprecise.
But what else can you expect from the Dissembling Institute?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As it happens, I just re-read your review of Dembski's The Design Revolution posted on The Panda's Thumb way back in April 2004--and the 65 orders of magnitude error was mentioned as being pointed out two years before that. I guess there's no surprise here, as the Discovery Institute and their ilk have never been in touch with the present.
Post a Comment