Eric Holloway: Honest Questions on Information Theory

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EricMH

And it is this last group that has been some of the most influential in convincing me to be interested in ID. Why must they spend so much time insulting and harassing ID people, and disproving a lot of strawman arguments instead of disproving ID itself, if there is nothing to it?

Very good question. It seems very insecure, doesn’t it?

@EricMH

However, my subjective opinion is the ID side is better at being honest about their shortcomings, and being conservative in their pronouncements. Especially Dembski, Marks, Ewert and Montanez. Marks and Ewert

I agree about @Winston_Ewert, as I’ve seen this firsthand. I like him.

Can you point me to any place where Dembski or Marks has been “being honest about their shortcomings”, or retracted an error, or identified fallacious ID arguments that have been put in public?

For example, take a look at this:

@swamidass

This paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6739 ) is put forward as example of CSI (ala Dembski) and is essential numerology. @evograd has linked to some clear rebuttals of this, and it has not been picked up by any of the leaders. Though, we still see it positively referenced at ENV: https://evolutionnews.org/2013/03/a_wow_signal_of/ . Do they stand by this paper? Do they agree it is an example of CSI? If not, when will they point out and clarify its problems?

Did Dembski ever explain why this paper is not valid, and explain how they went wrong? Why is it still on the DI publication list?