|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 12/04/2008 : 21:47:03
|
Wow. Here's something you don't see too often. An IDist admitting error. In the comments section of a thread, Dembski is finally stating that his explanatory filter is not a good way for detecting intelligent design.
My smile was made all the bigger since commenters had previously, in the very same thread, tried to explain why the filter works. "Sal Gal" pointed out that Dembski had stopped using the filter to which ID supporter "Patrick" responds:
| Huh? I think you're confusing issues. It's not like Dembski “gave up on the EF” and that “the EF is a zombie”. I've been communicating with him privately for years and there's been no indication of a position change like that. It's all in your mind. |
Six hours later, Dembski writes:
| (1) I've pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection. |
Poor Patrick.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2008 : 10:37:30 [Permalink]
|
DEMBSKI DECANTS!
Yup. After dispensing with his explanatory filter about a week ago (after some 10 years), he is now reinstating it. He even says this about it:
| On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread) |
WTF? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dembski recants
