Over at the Panda's Thumb, Dave Thomas has an enlightening piece on his experiments with genetic algorithms in which he takes on claims by Dembski, John Bracht and others. Thomas shows (contra claims by ID supporters) that GAs can successfully evolve solutions using random mutation and selection without specifiying a target, just like in biological evolution. I predict much smoke and mirrors by Dembski and friends.
[tags: intelligent design | anti-evolution | genetic algorithms ]
More like this
Ed has written a little about Dembski's claim that Barbara Forrest (of Creationism's Trojan Horse fame) owes her care
I've been a bit derelict in my blog reading lately, so I overlooked this post by Wesley Elsberry.
A while ago, I wrote about Dembski's definition of specified complexity, arguing that it was a non-sensical pile of rubbish, because of the fact that "specified complexity" likes to present itself as being a combination of two distinct concepts: specification and complexity.
Jeff Shallit has issued a response on Panda's Thumb to accusations made (in lieu of a response) by William Dembski to his