At this point the reader of Dembski's book is a tad confused. Why, given the
above revelation, is the book entitled No Free Lunch? Why is its dust jacket
lined with blurbs from physicists attesting that Dembski has done something
big? And, most important, why did I spend two nights reading about a theorem
that reports an irrelevant result?

http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR27.3/orr.html


I think the reviewer here should have busted Dembski even harder, with an
even more insulting accusation, i.e. plain greasy sophistry. It is my job to
maintain quality, according to Dembski anyway I gather, so he's going to have
to pay the piper.

How? Let's look at fitness and complexity, the topic of Dembski's dumb
theory.

Dembski says all search algorithms are equally efficient a priori, if
averaged against all possible problems, i.e. they search blind. Thus no
search algorithm for fitness can influence design.

The relation to Wolfram's "universal algorithm" is perhaps ultra-relevant
here, and can be used to wipe up Dembski's fecal reputation once and for all.


The sillogism I see is five moves into Dembski's line. He claims to be able
to invoke all possible problems. By Bayesian statistics he cannot do that.
Per curiam prohibited, if I understand my Bayes.

Dembski weasels past the sillogism however and goes on to produce something I
honestly have to declare was done already by Hume, i.e. "The Principle of
Unintelligibility."

So, I'll rhetoricate Dembski too. And do the dishes.

Max Herman
genius2000.net

++