Panda's ThumbのPvMは2006年5月29日付けのエントリ「Unanswered Criticism of Dembski’s Specified Complexity」で、DembskiのSpecified Complexity(指定された複雑さ)に対する批判をかき集めている。その中に、退却するDembskiとでも言うべきものがあった。

C7 [yersinia]: Dembski’s original formulation of the CSI (complex specified information, i.e. specified complexity) argument was to:

(1) rule out chance causes (which can only produce small amounts of “specified information” — the definition of this is difficult but we can think of it as a e.g. “functional DNA changes with a probability of random occurence greater than 10^-150”),
(2) rule out regular causes (which can only transmit “specified information”, not increase it), and
(3) If (1) and (2) were successful, conclude design.

However this failed to rule out the very important possiblity of variation + natural selection, a combination of chance & regularity, which could randomly generate small amounts of specified information via chance and then preserve them (on average) via selection. Thus even hundreds or thousands of bits of SI (at some point we pass the 10^-150 random-generation-probability limit and reach CSI) could be generated by gradual accumulation.


(3) もし(1)と(2)がうまくいったら、デザインだと結論する。


To patch this hole, Dembski turned to Behe’s concept of Irreducible Complexity. The beginnings of this are seen in his book Intelligent Design and IC is emphasized further in No Free Lunch. IMO Dembski’s SC argument is in fact entirely dependent on the IC argument.

So C7 is: Dembski’s SC argument boils down to Behe’s IC argument, thus the SC argument adds nothing to the debate.

この穴を修復するために、DembskiはBeheの還元不可能な複雑さの概念に眼を向けた。その兆しは、彼の本"Intelligent Design"で見られ、さらに"No Free Lunch"で還元不可能な複雑さが強調されるようになっている。私の意見では、Dembskiの指定された複雑さの論は、事実上、還元不可能な複雑さの論に依存している。



C8 [yersinia] is that the IC argument has been subject to a number of severe criticisms, especially regarding indirect evolutionary pathways. In recent articles Dembski seems to have been hedging his bets by saying that even if convincing evolutionary pathways to IC/SC were found (to his satisfaction) that the SC would still somehow imply design via obscure means (front-loading the fitness function, but conceiving this in practical ecological terms is difficult).


Summary of C8: Dembski having an emergency backup design scenario in case it turns out that IC/SC can evolve removes the SC—>ID argument from being falsifiable even in principle.



posted by Kumicit at 2006/06/08 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Dembski | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]