Re: more on information from naught

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Sat May 11 2002 - 04:13:01 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: The Problem of Liberal Theology"

    What is d-cr*p? Can you translate it into english as the lady up at Balmoral
    speaks it?

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Glenn Morton" <>
    To: "Allen Roy" <>; "george murphy" <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 6:02 AM
    Subject: RE: more on information from naught

    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: []On
    > >Behalf Of Allen Roy
    > >Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 9:57 AM
    > > To report that Dembski is purposefully using "smoke and mirrors" when
    > >he is not, is "willful misrepresentation".
    > > If you are big enough to dish it out, you are big enough to take it.
    > >
    > The problem I see is that Dembski doesn't seem to understand what
    > information is. In Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Sept 1997,
    > Dembski wrote an article which mis-used the definition of information .
    > He wrote:
    > "It is CSI [complex specified information] that within the
    > Kolmogorov-Chaitin
    > theory of algorithmic information takes the form of a highly compressible,
    > nonrandom strings of digits."Dembski, Sept. 1997 PSCF. p 186
    > What he is saying here is that a sequence which is highly compressible is
    > high in informational content. But that is pure d-cr*p! The sequence
    > can be compressed to the string:
    > 13A
    > but the string
    > 'ihavefourcats'
    > can not be compressed a lot. There is more information in ihave four cats
    > than
    > is in 13A. But the sequence
    > 'jibwfgpvsdbut' has as much information as does ihavefourcats. While
    > ihavefourcats has meaning, it has no more informational content.
    > The point of all this is that Dembski can't even define his terms
    > within information theory. And in a phone conversation with Steve Meyers
    > about this, he acknoweldged to me that I was correct on this--that Dembski
    > was backwards. To be backwards, Allen, means Dembski doesn't know what he
    > is talking about.
    > Dembski never did correct this. That entire group has a credibility
    > with me. When I tried repeatedly to get the Discovery Institute to change
    > its web page which claimed Dembski gave a plenary session paper to the
    > entire attendees (which was factually false), they didn't seem to see the
    > problem with that. I guess being accurate with that group isn't
    > glenn
    > see
    > for lots of creation/evolution information
    > anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    > personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 11 2002 - 22:41:09 EDT