[.ca] No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be ... (ISBN 074255810X)

This lunch needs some more cooking:
In this book, design theorist William Dembski attempts to show that there is a certain kind of information that can only come from intelligence but which is yet abundant in nature and in particular in biological organisms. Not surprisingly, the conclusion is that there must be some intelligent designer (e.g. God) involved in the generation of biological information. Note that Dembski is not attacking evolution and common descent in general - what some creationists vulgarly describe as "molecules to man" - but he does claim that Darwinian and other purely natural mechanisms are insufficient to account for complicated biological systems and hence that some amount of supernatural intervention is required. Dembski's starting point is the concept of "specified complexity", which he defines as follows. An object exhibits specified complexity if it conforms to some independently specified pattern (specification), and if the probability that something conforming to that pattern should occur by purely natural causes - laws and chance - is exceedingly low (complexity). If such an object is found, then its origin must involve some kind of intelligent agency. In other words, specified complexity is defined in such a way that it should entail intelligent design. And that brings us to one very annoying aspect of Dembski's book. Throughout the book, Dembski keeps seeing specified complexity everywhere, as if its presence was an uncontroversial and obvious thing. One example: "ID offers one obvious prediction, namely that nature should be shock-full of specified complexity and therefore should contain numerous pointers to design. This prediction is increasingly being confirmed" (p. 362). He also cites several other authors using "complexity" and "specified" or similar terms as if they interpreted them in the same very strict sense as Dembski (most likely they did not). As a matter of fact, Dembski consistently fails to demonstrate the presence of specified complexity as he defines it in nature; he makes a single futile attemp in the book (see further down). Dembski then moves on into the realm of information theory, and after briefly presenting the more established notions of information he dismisses them as inadequate for his purposes. He goes on to define his own brand on information theory based on his own notions of complexity and specificity. Dembski then establishes a "law of conservation of information" that states: if there is CSI (complex specified information) in an event B and B is caused by A (A being a sufficient and unintelligent cause for B) then the amount of CSI in B is at most the same as the amount in A plus a small additional amount. Thus natural processes are incapable of generating any significant amounts of new CSI; they can just shuffle it around. Dembski also presents a mathematical argument for his proposed law (in which one can notice that the environment, i.e. nature, also can contribute with CSI to B). But then comes the question whether CSI can appear though several separate events, where the smaller pieces of information in each is combined to form CSI. Dembski argues that that is not the case and claims that CSI is holistic. He also presents one simple example to back up his claims. The lack of rigour and deeper analysis at this point is striking, and leaves a hole big enough for, well, lets say a Charles Darwin, to pass through. These shifts between mathematical rigour and sloppy hand-waving are quite typical for the book. Next Dembski addresses evolutionary algorithms and the No Free Lunch Theorems (NFLs) about the efficiency of search algorithms. It is this part of the book that caused David Wolpert, one of the discoverers of the NFLs(which have given the book its title) to write a very critical article "William Dembki's treatment of the NFL theorems is written in Jello" (Mathematical Review). Dembski discusses said theorems and their consequences in some length. Unfortunately, they make certain assumptions (e.g. fixed target, static fitness function) that do not hold for biological evolution, so in the end their inclusion is only marginally relevant for the theme of the book. Instead, the discussion declines into hand-waving about fine-tuning of cosmological constants, planetary conditions and such things, and finally about irreducible complexity. Dembski then spends a chapter trying to salvage Behe's notion of irreducible complexity (IC). The chapter ends with Dembski providing a sketch for how one could compute whether the allegedly IC bacterial flagellum exhibits specified complexity (SC). Unfortunately, Dembski fails to follow his own method for identifying SC. In particular, he doesn't provide any independent specification and the only natural explanation he considers is the spontaneous assembly of the complete flagellum at once. Dembski's attempt at this computation underlines the great difficulties involved in actually applying his definition of SC to real biological systems. The book ends with a discussion about ID as a research program. One memorable moment here is when Dembski discusses falsifiability. ID can be falsified by being made superfluous. Darwinism is unfalsifiable because the Darwinists don't consider the ignorance of Darwinian paths for e.g. the bacterial flagellum a falsification. I'm actually surprised by how flawed this book is and how embarrassingly large the gap is between Dembski's pretensions and his actual accomplishments. He should probably have worked on the book another couple of years; it might have had the potential of turning into something interesting. On the other side, a proper treatment of the subject may of course not have lead Dembski in the direction he wants to go. Anyhow, the lasting impression is that Dembski and his ID movement is only concerned about polemics and propaganda, and lacks a genuine interest and competence to do real science. In summary, this is an excellent book if one is interested in the intelligent design movement, but it doesn't have anything significant to say about information and biological systems.

Makes Sense of the Data:
This work by Professor Dembski attempts to defend the idea that life not only is, but must be, the product of intelligence. As a cell biologist, my graduate course work and teaching experience has demonstrated this over and over, but Dembski in this book looks at the mathematics and logic that supports this premise. He also does an excellent job responding to the arguments against the irreducible complexity concept. In my opinion, this is one of the strongest arguments for ID. The arguments concocted against it have, in my mind, only confirmed this concept. Dembski also does an excellent job responding to Dawkins and his ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL analogy, which proves the opposite of what Dawkins intended. A common claim is that Dembski (and the ID movement as a whole) is only concerned about polemics and propaganda, and the movement lacks a genuine interest and competence to do real science (which I assume refers to empirical research and collecting data). I have spent much of my career collecting data. This requires a special skill but more important in science is the ability to understand and integrate this data, which takes a skill that I have come to appreciate is less common and more important than doing number crunching of measurements. There is a place for both, but a clear need exists to make sense of the data we already have. I find that students can gather date fairly effectively, but the real challenge and talent is to make sense of that data. In grading their labs I always stress this. Dembski has done an invaluable service in making sense of the extant data. The only factor preventing acceptance of his conclusions is an emotional commitment to fundamentalist Darwinism.

An early contestant for Book of the Millenium:
Darwin is dead. Let's get on with it and keep science within the realm of REAL alternatives in origins research. That pretty well summarizes No Free Lunch, which brings the reader up to date with the latest in mathematical research and design theory. The "No Free Lunch" theorems establish that information does not arise by either chance or order - the two mechanisms available to naturalism, AKA atheistic Darwinism. The only thing left is intelligence as the source of information. This is hardly the first book to make this claim (cf. Werner Gitt's In the Beginning was Information - or for that matter, the ancient Greek philosophers had it figured out). But in a world saturated with the religion of naturalism, this blunt work destroying that religion at its very foundation stands out. When the last Darwinist is dead and buried, William Dembski will be highly ranked among those who laid the evolutionary ideology to rest. Demski's handling of Darwinian critics, blinded by their own preconceptions and faith commitments, is excellent. While the book as a whole is too technical for many readers, Dembski outlines the main themes very well, limiting the mathematical proofs to some sections so that the remainder of the work can be read profitably by just about anyone.

Chemical Engineer review:
Dembski has proven the 1st Law of Information -- There is No Free Lunch of specified complexity (i.e., design) without Intelligence. This is as well proven as statistical thermodynamics proves the 2nd Law of Thermo. My only question is what took us (scientific professionals) so long to see the obvious. Thanks, Bill for a great job of documentation -- this book is a milestone of historical scientific achievement.

Potent, persuasive:
Although the reading may be a bit difficult for some, the ideas and arguments presented in this book should be able convince intelligent, open-minded individuals that Intelligent Design offers a better scientific framework than Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Dogmatic Darwinian apologists, however, will not be moved from their cherished preconceptions.