A few weeks ago I solicited questions on Google Moderator as an experiment. Unfortunately, the experiment was not very successful as I only got a few questions. However, I will answer the questions that did get listed. During this time Dr. Thomas English posted some questions at the skeptical zone, and I’ll be answering those […]
Author: Winston Ewert
Ask Dr. Ewert
I recently spent some time answering questions in a comment thread here at Uncommon Descent. It seems that people appreciated me taking the time to do this. Unfortunately, this is not something that I typically have the time to do. So, I thought I’d try an experiment. I have created a Google Moderator page, where […]
Aurelio Smith’s Analysis of Active Information
Recently, Aurelio Smith had a guest publication here at Uncommon Descent entitled Signal to Noise: A Critical Analysis of Active Information. Most of the post is taken up by a recounting of the history of active information. He also quotes the criticisms of Felsentein and English which have responded to at Evolution News and Views: These Critics […]
Has Specified Complexity Changed?
When I wrote my recent post on the alleged circularity of specified complexity, I did so in a deliberately provocative way. I wrote it emphasizing my agreement with keith s, in an attempt to shake things up and make people think. I felt that both sides of the debate here on uncommon descent were speaking […]
The Circularity of the Design Inference
Keith S is right. Sort of. As highlighted in a recent post by vjtorley, Keith S has argued that Dembski’s Design Inference is a circular argument. As Keith describes the argument: In other words, we conclude that something didn’t evolve only if we already know that it didn’t evolve. CSI is just window dressing for […]
Avida’s EQU in 18 instructions
The evolutionary model, Avida, is best known for evolving the EQU function. In the supplementary materials for the 2003 Nature paper, the authors presented the shortest known program to compute EQU taking 19 instructions. They note that it hasn’t been proven that it was the shortest program. In fact it is not, and I present […]
Where do we get the probabilities?
What is the probability of a structure like the bacterial flagellum evolving under Darwinian processes? This is the question on which the entire debate over Darwinian evolution turns. If the bacterial flagellum’s evolution is absurdly improbable, than Darwinism is false. On the other hand, if the flagellum is reasonably probable than Darwinism looks like a […]
The Tragedy of Two CSIs
CSI has come to refer to two distinct and incompatible concepts. This has lead to no end of confusion and flawed argumentation. CSI, as developed by Dembski, requires the calculation of the probability of an artefact under the mechanisms actually in operation. It a measurement of how unlikely the artefact was to emerge given its […]
CSI Confusion: Who Can Generate CSI?
In my first post, I discussed the importance of mechanism. In order to compute CSI you have to take into account the mechanism. Computing CSI without a mechanism is wrong. I deliberately focused on the use of specified complexity in evaluating various possible mechanisms. This is how Dembski uses CSI in his Design Inference argument. […]
CSI Confusion: Remember the Mechanism!
A number of posts on Uncommon Descent have discussed issues surrounding specified complexity. Unfortunately, the posts and discussions that resulted have exhibited some confusion over the nature of specified complexity. Specified complexity was developed by William Dembski and deviation from his formulation has led to much confusion and trouble. I’m picking a random number between […]
Questioning Information Cost
Di.. Eb.., or Dieb, on the blog DiEbLog, has posted a number of questions, relating to the paper A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search. He raises a number of questions and objections to the paper. Firstly, Dieb objects that the quasi-Bayesian calculation on Page 56 is incorrect, although it obtains the […]