What do you understand Dr. Dembski to be conveying in that passage?
A. What he’s saying here is pretty clear, that if you take science as science, that intelligent design theory has a snowball’s chance, and they need to change the ground rules. They need to change what science is, that, you know, science is hard. It requires that one test things. One always says as the scientists know, where’s the beef, show us the evidence. It’s I suppose hot in the kitchen, and I guess what they’re saying is if it’s too hot and they won’t survive in the kitchen, and one might say well, if the kitchen too hot, go elsewhere. Q. Specific reference to a hot kitchen there. A. Exactly.
Related Questions
- I guess then, what methodology do you use to exclude the same kind of consideration from Dr. Dembski and others that you used to exclude Eugenia Scotts philosophical and religious comments?
- Is it your understanding that thats the sort of concept that Dr. Dembski is trying to convey with the notion of complex specified information?
- And again the book that Dr. Dembski wrote, The Design Inference, explains his ideas of complex specified information, correct?
