I will try to answer some of your questions. But I don’t think they are very relevant to the point.

“Do you accept that Information theory is Science?”

I am sure it is but I know little if anything about it and I have not seen anyone provide an easily to understand description of it and how it applies to ID. I am interested in the evolution debate and not the general ID debate so if it applies there I will have little interest in pursuing it.

“Do you accept that it is the intersection of Info Th and molecular bio that is much of how ID speaks into biology?”

I have no idea what you mean but doubt that it is what you claim. DNA in parts specifies RNA and protein molecules. That is all I know and haven’t got a clue how that relates to information theory. Nor have I seen anyone who makes a clear case for it. Don’t ask me to read anything you have written because I find your style sometimes too rambling. You are a good thinker but a lot of it gets wasted because of your style of prose.

“Do you accept that those who use PCs and recognise posts as messages are thereby inferring that lucky noise did not mimic signals — though it is strictly logically and physically possible?”

I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. If you want to say that people understand each other’s language, then I understand that and if you want to make an analogy to DNA, then so be it. I have made that claim about 500 times here and several in the last few days and also on this thread. So what is your point?

“Do you accept that to so act is to imply acceptance of a simple, intuitive version of the explanatory filter?”

No one said the EF was not useful in some cases. And I probably accept the process in general. But I have said no one and I mean no one has explained just what CSI is so that it can be conveniently used in the filter or any place else. And I pointed out in the past when we were on one of the endless discussions of just what CSI was that bfast was the one to point out that specified means when one set of data specifies something else that has function. When he said that and I never saw anyone before him say it, the issue became clear. And that was over two years ago and was the first time that anyone I saw make that connection. Since that time especially in the last year it has become more common to limit any discussion of CSI to FSCI.

“Do you accept the implications of the above”

It sounds like I am being indoctrinated into some society and asked to make a pledge of allegiance. So I will answer that as long we use the term CSI here we are inviting problems. That is why I said get rid or CSI.

Now Behe’s work is different from CSI no matter how one spins it. I didn’t say he objects to it. He does not use the concept in his work and does not need to. I believe it would only confuse people if he did.

And last but not least, Behe’s work has been much more valuable to ID. Durston’s work seems to be up there too but it depends primarily upon ideas such that the proteins are very, very isolated in protein space and thus explains why Behe’s edge of evolution is so insightful. I do not know for sure if that is Durston’s work. Durston’s other conclusion is closer to Dembski’s work in that the construction of these long proteins are beyond the resources of the universe. But it is the rareness of the proteins that to me is key but wiser heads may think otherwise.

So Durston is contributing in two areas and each is very important and is new. I hope it all stands up because it could be devastating to the anti ID folks. Our weapons are expanding while the Darwinists are getting thiner.

In keeping with that point, we felt that we should pay tribute to our forbears, which is why you find the following statement at the end: “We jointly express appreciation to the developers of an earlier form of this page on responding to weak anti-ID arguments.”

Now that we have more information, we can improve on that. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, because we have been thinking about the point, but we just didn’t know how to approach it. My understanding was that this was an update, and I gather that many things have happened since the first report came out. That is why we tried to keep most of the same questions and attempt to answer them based on recent developments.

For my part, I hope that you and Dave will help us shape it just as others are trying to do. Both of you know things that few other people know and you have been around here a lot longer than I have. Again, I don’t decide these things, but I would like to include your contribution and anything Dave Scot deems as relevant with due attribution.

based upon the flagellum research of the time Dembski ran his calculations based upon the assumed IC core of 30 proteins out of the total 42. It’s possible that less are required for the IC core, but even if halved that would not substantially change the outcome since it’d still be well over 500 informational bits. This is also why Dembski and Behe’s positions are inter-dependent. As Behe acknowledged long ago IC as an indicator for intelligent agency is only sustainable if all potential indirect pathways are infeasible, which is where Dembski’s work comes in. And Behe is trying to research the limits of MET mechanisms, which would validate Dembski’s assumption. But like you I prefer Behe’s line of inquiry since it’s based on things more tangible and easier to comprehend.

As noted my copy of the book is in storage somewhere, so my statement related to 30 proteins and IC might not be correct since I cannot remember exactly why Dembski calculated based upon 30. Whatever. The rest of my points remain. Speaking of which, the FAQ should probably summarize how Dembski did his calculations for the flagellum since it’s apparently become recently trendy on UD to claim that no one has attempted to do such calculations for a biological object.

I also think that there should be a list of links leading to UD debates that get into detail on specific topics. There’s a ton of great comments buried in UD’s archives that should be highlighted.

Over the years I expanded it greatly to include arguments that kept popping up again every couple weeks, since I was getting tired of rehashing the same subject matter with new visitors. So I’m glad to see my efforts are not wasted. And I like many of the changes and additions that have been made…and the fact that the current editors are much more qualified to write such a FAQ than I am, so I don’t have to worry about embarrassing UD with a silly mistake or misconception made by myself.

Also, the negative aspect to this history to the FAQ is that it does not read like a standard FAQ per se since it was intended more as a “FRA” (Frequently Refuted Arguments). So if you do not like the way many of the questions (or assertions) read then blame me. Or blame the Darwinist that I copied from or paraphrased. Whatever works. I don’t mind being a target for your irritation.

On a side note, I was planning on writing a page called “The UD Standing Challenge” which summarized the major points related to the flagellum debate that ended with the simple challenge “name the indirect pathway and its functional intermediates”. Or maybe this should be called the “Most-Ignored Challenge”… Now the FAQ does go over the flagellum from an IC perspective but does not explain the informational challenge.

I appreciate the time and expertise the authors are putting into the FAQs!

thank you. You are a great help here!

I have always said that anybody doing serious biological research is doing ID research, because good data belong to all. But there is a difference between doing generic research which can always clarify important points for origin science, and doing specific research which is targeted to specific ID assumptions, like the functional space of proteins and so on. That is ID research in a more restricted sense, either it is done to support ID or to falsify it. That is, IMO, the kind of research, and of researchers, which should be mentioned in FAQ2. And I think we have made the relevant names here.

And, as you can see. all of us are focusing on FSCI here, so don’t be worried for Mount Rushmore and similar.

Finally, nobody is denying the importance of Behe’s work. If you read the whole FAQ, you will see that long answers are dedicated to him, like the absolute defense of his arguments about the flagellum and the plsmodium falciparum. Behe’s work is absolutely essential for ID, but I deny with all my strength that it is in any way antagonistic to Dembski’s concepts. The two things are absolutely complementary.