Re: AI Information Theory Rules

From: J. R. Molloy (
Date: Sun Mar 25 2001 - 09:45:46 MST

Robert J. Bradbury wrote,
> Has anyone read these who can comment on whether or not
> Dembski has thoughts that should be considered?

Dembski says, "I believe that nature points beyond itself to a
transcendent reality,
and that that reality is simultaneously reflected in a different
idiom by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments."

IOW, more supernatural theology of the same old tired kind.

Taner Edis, in contrast, writes, "Science no longer treats nature,
particularly life, as a supernatural design. Today, the very mention
conjures up images of young-earth creationists with their bizarre
scriptural literalism. Even the interesting questions creationists raise
(Edis 1998a) are overshadowed by the weirdness produced by leaders such as
Henry M. Morris, who can with a straight face go on about Satan using
psychic powers to deceive Eve."

"Enter William Dembski. Already known as one of the better ID proponents,
he has recently gathered his arguments in a book which claims to put ID on
a solid footing (Dembski 1999). Surprisingly, he is often correct. Though
dead wrong in his overall conclusions, he makes interesting mistakes, and
his errors highlight how powerful an idea Darwinian evolution is, in
biology and beyond."

Taner Edis is an assistant professor of physics at Truman State
University, Kirksville, MO 63501, and also maintains the SKEPTIC Annotated
Direct comments about this (excellent) article to:

It seems to me Edis has provided compelling arguments against ID, so I've
conveyed this sentiment to the author.
IMO, information theory surpasses ID theology, and ID deserves about as
much of our time as does white powder of gold. Consequently, I regret
bringing it up, and apologize to the list.

Stay hungry,

--J. R.

Useless hypotheses:
 consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:43 MDT