Recent paper with an ID spin? Abel and Trevors (2005).

The fact that they quote Dembski, and the "universal probability bound", is not a good sign.The abstract does not read as inherently ID supporting or evo breaking. In fact I'm sort of wondering what science or discovery is supposed to be going on here. It appears to me like the authors are simply creating definitions for terms, based on relatively arbitrary criteria, and concluding people should use those terms based on their criteria.The only thing I'd note (and again just from the abstract) is that their terminology might be convenient for ID. The distinction between "ordering" and "organization", with crystalization in the former and some unnamed process involving "choice contingency" in the latter, sound similar to the claims/distinctions Dembski makes in his writings.This would allow them to say, see this crystal is result of a natural chemical "ordering" process, but this over here (organic feature) must be from something else (nudge nudge wink wink) as it involves "organization". Then force opponents to argue about the chemical reactions involved using two different terms, one sounding loaded with "intelligence" behind it.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Exactly, maybe this is the new line of attack, they will redefine everything so that (if adopted) everyone will talk as if they actually made their case.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

If I am understanding this sentence correctly then I need to clarify. I was not saying that they were trying to adjust language in order to then claim this is all they meant all along and we misunderstood them.I was suggesting that it (pure speculation) could be used to create definitions such that people would speak in ways that would sound like they agreed with ID claims... as if ID had been supported and accepted.Scientists discussing ordered v organized systems, particularly with their prescribed info concept, would allow ID to continue their semantic claims by noting how scientists recognize the difference between types of processes based on how "information" is handled.Of course people can define things any way they want, and if people accept the language so be it. It may not even be intended to help ID. Only the question was raised, and given one of their sources, the stated examples, and the obscure critera involved, I theorized on that possible connection... then jiggled the knife a bit.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)