That's an invented term (Dembski, I think) that still lacks a formal definition.
It is the difference between crystals and language; snowflakes and code. It is the difference between organization and meaningful content.
babababababababa and 1234123412341234 are organization.
'This is specified complexity' is specified complexity.
I was under the impression (reports from both sides of the debate) that his religious conversion was the result of a personal event (divorce), and that conversion caused him to look critically at his beliefs about evolution.
His statements are that he found evolution wanting. As a matter of fact, his statements are that he tried to make the data fit, but couldn't. I haven't heard anything about his marital situation. In his words:
Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say – dare) to question the Primary Axiom….
Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.
Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this – but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory – in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment – which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!
End
The religous sections of the book detract even more from the scientific aspect.
Please do explain.
It doesn't take anything away from the ideas presented, but it explains why it's not subjected to much scientific criticism.
That is a sad considering the amount of scientific peer review offered those who use scientific data to make religious statements of the oppsoie extreme.
Another reason may be that much of his work is a restatement of data and information already presented into the scientific community as problematic. He told the emperor that he was naked.
Negative reviews may not surprise you, but you can't just dismiss them with a wave of the hand.
I haven't waved anything. I stated that they don't surprise me. None that I have read have impressed me, as 95% of them have been based on the subjects that you brought up-- thus why I felt the need to respond to the subjects. You'll hopefully forgive me for making the false connection.
OK...
That's an invented term (Dembski, I think) that still lacks a formal definition.
It is the difference between crystals and language; snowflakes and code. It is the difference between organization and meaningful content.
babababababababa and 1234123412341234 are organization.
'This is specified complexity' is specified complexity.
I was under the impression (reports from both sides of the debate) that his religious conversion was the result of a personal event (divorce), and that conversion caused him to look critically at his beliefs about evolution.
His statements are that he found evolution wanting. As a matter of fact, his statements are that he tried to make the data fit, but couldn't. I haven't heard anything about his marital situation. In his words:
Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say – dare) to question the Primary Axiom….
Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.
Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean I would have to be stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin to explore some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this – but I must confess I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory – in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment – which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending a lot of people’s religion!
End
The religous sections of the book detract even more from the scientific aspect.
Please do explain.
It doesn't take anything away from the ideas presented, but it explains why it's not subjected to much scientific criticism.
That is a sad considering the amount of scientific peer review offered those who use scientific data to make religious statements of the oppsoie extreme.
Another reason may be that much of his work is a restatement of data and information already presented into the scientific community as problematic. He told the emperor that he was naked.
Negative reviews may not surprise you, but you can't just dismiss them with a wave of the hand.
I haven't waved anything. I stated that they don't surprise me. None that I have read have impressed me, as 95% of them have been based on the subjects that you brought up-- thus why I felt the need to respond to the subjects. You'll hopefully forgive me for making the false connection.
More info: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/respected-cornell-gene...