A Year In Intelligent Design

Indeed. They have their own journals and publish nill.
However, I'd like to point out that Dembskis thesis was approved through the normal route, and that's probably the best they've done. Dembski's work, as far as I can tell from the peer review has been torn apart from every angle, and largely criticised by his own peers as obfuscatory.

Indeed I shall. I've been lurking for a little bit now, I like what I see. It's a definite improvement from the conversation I see elsewhere.

Shenanigans? Interesting. I think I'll have to leave my interest in that on the back burner for now; the sudden shift from 'creation science' to 'intelligent design' rings a bell; especially in regards to the textbook subpoena in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

PaulK writes: Certainly it fails to elucidate how we actually recognise design, focussing instead on a method that is impractical - and, as Dembski has since admitted, flawed.

Prepended: this next bit is a sort of position statement. Sorry.
I haven't read The Design Inference, but I have printed out several pages of his seminal thesis (upon which the book and his subsequent writing about Complex, Specified Information is based) for reference. When I first started reading the arguments from the Intelligent Design community I was immediately interested in their claim (based on Dembskis claim) that it is being used in Forensic Science and Archaeology.
It was a short order for me to cook up an argument probing my interlocutors as to exactly how the Design Inference would differentiate between four scenarios. Needless to say, they merely told me I should read the Design Inference (a seeming tacit admission that they haven't read it, or at least haven't understood it).
Taking their bait, that's how I came to accessing Dembskis thesis (my library didn't have a copy of The Design Inference, but did have a copy of The Design Revolution which I was unimpressed by, to say the least). I've tried my best to comprehend it, but as I mentioned even Dembskis academic peers have criticized his writing for being misleading or hard to comprehend (and not because it's a difficult topic).
Suffice it to say, those actually involved in Forensics and Archaeology aren't impressed. See: Chapter 8, written by Gary S. Hurd in 'Why Intelligent Design Fails'.

quote:

---

...focussing instead on a method that is impractical - and, as Dembski has since admitted, flawed.

---

I'm being tangential, pardon me.
How do you mean impractical? I've been reading the peer review and it's quite negative, but are you alluding to how the Design Inference (the Explanatory Filter) doesn't positively indicate design, but negates the (purportedly) only other explanations?
I'm also interested to read Dembskis admission, if you could find it. I have noticed though that he shifts his explanations from the Design Inference in earlier work to the Explanatory Filter in later work, and uses different diagrams, flow-charts, etc. each of which are slightly different iterations of the same concept.

Addendum Sorry for the roundabout, merry-go-round of a reply. I do intend to collate my ideas and criticisms of Intelligent Design in the future. This is a late-night reply so it's off the cuff.

Facebook; I lurk and comment in several 'debate' groups. There are some quality commentators (on both sides) that I enjoy reading and replying to. If it's a little slow, I might be able to convince some of them to at least happen by here if not participate.
Indeed, I see a lot of quality content here. The reference library, and platform itself are more conducive to learning from each other, especially compared to Facebook. I've learned a lot in my discussions there, but there's a need not met by the platform itself; formatting is a godsend.

Thanks. When I was reading Ch. 8; Forensics & Archaeology the argument was that most of the actual work was being done with side knowledge, and not the actual issue. In biology this is particularly important. How do we know there is a specified pattern in the genome, or the epigenome (as ID proponents seem to be fixating on now)? Any pattern we see we are more than likely applying ourselves, after the fact. So much for not painting the bull's-eyes where the arrows land, right?

Edited by A Certain Cyborg, : Autocorrect error.

Would you mind elaborating? It's been a couple months since I've looked at any of this in depth.
Appended: Quoting wouldn't work earlier when I was trying to reply from my phone, so I'm fixing the post now for what I actually wanted to communicate.

PaulK writes: ...the usual method of detecting design is to consider a positive design hypothesis and use inference to the best explanation. Purely negative arguments are an unreliable method - it’s too easy to miss possibilities.

I'm not too familiar with the usual methods; I have an interest in Forensics, but I know too little to make a comparison between how the science actually works compared with Dembski's method. However, I do understand that Dembski's method is a 'negative', or exclusionary 'sieve'; it doesn't positively indicate design, and it only rules out the (purportedly) only other explanations. As for probabilities...

PaulK writes: Dembski’s method is supposed to deal with identifying the pattern in retrospect.

I'm at a loss for how it is supposed to do this. Complex Specified Information makes sense to me, but he doesn't seem to propose a method to detect any specifications, they must be assumed. As for 'special patterns' and the probabilities of "getting" any of them, I don't know what you're referring to. In regards to possible specifications, I'd really like to see Dembski's chicken scratchings on that.

Evolutionary mechanisms are ruled out a priori with his method not because of the 'necessary' sieve in his Explanatory Filter, but because natural selection doesn't specify positively any patterns of surviving organisms genome, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not a savant or even very well acquainted with evolution beyond the basics, but natural selection is the environmental pressure selecting negatively (akin to Dembski's sieve) the organisms which are unfit, and the rest of the population it is blind to, right? In other words, natural selection is simply death of the unfit, no?

Edited by A Certain Cyborg, : I'm not going to try to respond from my phone again.

PaulK writes: quote: but natural selection is the environmental pressure selecting negatively (akin to Dembski's sieve) the organisms which are unfit, and the rest of the population it is blind to, right? In other words, natural selection is simply death of the unfit, no? That’s not really accurate. Positive selection for beneficial traits is an important part of evolution. The simplest explanation is that, in aggregate, genes that help individuals successfully reproduce become more common while genes that hinder that become less common.

Alright. Good to know I'm mistaken. It's been a while since I've read any Dawkins, and I haven't read any textbook explanations (which I should; I have several right next to me). I'll have to review the literature I have on hand before I consider these things further.