Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 09, 2010, 01:13 (5401 days ago) @ xeno6696


> And Dembski solved that problem incorrectly skewing his result by 100 orders of magnitude (against himself, I add). I reiterate that the fact he's not willing to fix an error (that would even work in his own favor) means he's deliberately dishonest. That book's been in print for over 10 years and no errata has appeared on his website to address this. I still don't know why you care to quote him, he is beyond contempt in my view. -David: "one should be able to calculate the odds against chance from that point. Dembski did it for the flagellum, and he found enormous odds. I just don't know enough math to even try". -I don't care if he made an error. My point was, obviously, he had some way of using necessary proteins to make such a calculation for 'chance',and by your own discussion his odds were more enormous that he stated. The discovery of the error only makes his point stronger, it seems to me, as it increases the odds against 'chance'. You are quite overly emotional about Dembski.