What are the ID perps up to?

[RonO]

Over at the Panda's Thumb a discussion has started about a paper by
Dembski, Ewert, and Marks. The paper "A General Theory of Information
Cost Incurred by Successful Search" seems to be difficult to justify in
terms of evolutionary biology, but Dembski tried to apply it to
evolution in some talk. Beats me why anyone would try to use a search
scheme that wasn't relevant to biological evolution to try to say
anything about the topic, but Dembski seems to be trying. It reminds me
of the "test" Dembski was going to publish, over a decade ago,
supporting ID that turned out to be the bogus tornado through a junkyard
probability calculation that Dembski had to admit was not biologically
relevant.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/03/fitness-surface.html#more

The paper:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0002

This just seems to be more obfuscation rather than testing much of anything.

Ron Okimoto

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Dembsky and its ilk are not writing for us, but for them. The idea is to
write something that would look "intelligent" to creationists, while
looking scientist at the same time. It is not a question of being
scientist, but to speak like them apparently.
Eri

[Ernest Major]

How does this differ from Dembski's abuse of the NFL theorems?

--
alias Ernest Major

[RonO]

likely in no way that matters. I just watched the beginning of
Dembski's talk that was linked to at Pandas and it must have been
embarassing for his old mentor from the 1980's to introduce Dembski for
such a talk. The poor guy ended up reading the blurp about Dembski that
he got off the Discovery Institute web site. Does anyone think that if
Dembski's work had amounted to anything that the poor guy would have to
do that?

Ron Okimoto