Mathgrrl Auditions for Arthur Murray Dance Studio
|April 13, 2011||Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design|
In my last post I demonstrated that Leslie Orgel coined the phrase “specified complexity.” Then I demonstrated that William Dembski uses the phrase in an identical sense.
This placed Mathgrrl on the horns of a dilemma. She can stick with her assertion that the concept of “specified complexity” is meaningless, but if she does that she has to admit that materialist hero Orgel was employing a meaningless concept.
Or she can admit that Orgel’s concept of “specified complexity” is meaningful, but if she does that she has to admit that ID proponent Dembski’s use of the concept is legitimate.
What is a good materialist to do? Dance, evade and obfuscate of course!
Now Mathgrrl writes: “I have said nothing about whether or not Orgel’s concept is coherent or meaningful.”
OK Mathgrrl. I will put it to you: Was Orgel’s concept of specified complexity coherent or meaningful?
My prediction: More dancing, evasion and obfuscation.