Let the record reflect that the roots, context and utility of the CSI concept and one metric model have been shown in outline, in a context that leads back tot he fuller discussion inclduing addressing any number of hyperskeptical talking points as seen these past three months.
And it the above sounds like I typed it through gritted teeth, it is because tha tis precisely correct.
Anytime you see someone blandly declaring that the CSI concept has no reasonable warrant and is not a meaningful or measurable entitty, that person is either parroting a talking point or is saying what she or he s=knows or should know is false and misleading.
And in the case of MG, she owes a major apology for the snide and utterly out of order insinuation that the situaiton is in any material respect parallel tothe case of the Inquisition’s threatening Galileo with torture intruments to get him to publicly back down.
As for those who have gone on to play at outing tactics, THAT is intended to intimidate people who would think to say anything supportive of ID. Those who have gone on to make false accusations of UD being a nest of perversion do so knowing that where I come from, that is a mortal insult worth someone’s life.
That is the level of poisonous, vicious mind we are dealing with, and we had better stop thinking that if we are nicey-nicey maybe they will love us and be nice to us. No, at this end of the spectrum, we are dealing with the same sort of ideological, indoctrinated fanatic that I cut my intellectual eye teeth on many years ago now: the Communists.
That is what Dawkins et al REALLY mean when they suggest that those who dare differ with them are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.
Such can only be exposed and broken when their follies and agendas are manifest to all. And, fence sitting is enabling behaviour.
(That’s why I wrote this post, as a warning. Bone up on Alinsky, folks, that is what we are dealing with.)
GEM of TKI
PS: Onlookers, observe how MG is — as usual — dismissive without being substantial; cf with the just above which clips a summary response on the merits from an exchange with Dr Liddle.
We can safely predict that no answer on the merits, no worked examples [never mind that some of these show how the Dembski and Durston metrics fit together, never mind her assertion/suggestion that such was not possible, etc etc], no analysis will ever receive a more responsive answer from her.
Conclusion: she is playing ideological, rhetorical games in the teeth of what she knows or should know, she is not responding on the merits — where, if I was wrong, she and her ilk would love to pounce on the errors I have made, in painstaking details, i.e. it it that very dismissiveness that is the key clue that this response is based on a bluff intended to drag us into cycle after cycle of trying to prove something to the utterly unreasonable.
And, it is further to be noted that she has been especially unresponsive on mathematics, save to make errors like dismissing a log reduction calculation as a probability calculation. For MONTHS, she has failed to explain this blunder.
Hey gordo, why don't you just shut your lying, pious, foaming, sanctimonious pie hole and answer MathGrrl's questions? Better yet, let's see you and your ilk put all those hyper-pseudo, drumbeat repetitive, rhetorical ID talking points you constantly regurgitate through your gritted, shit stained teeth to work in calculating the CSI in a cucumber. You can start with the one in your ass.