No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence

Rating:
Summary: Makes Sense of the Data
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Chemical Engineer review
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.

Rating:
Summary: Stalking the wild loophole ... but well done
Review: Evolutionary theory is still one of the best kept secrets in science, at least in the United States. So if it weren't for the political sensitivity of the topic regarding education, and the unavoidable and sometimes warranted guilt by association; "No Free Lunch" could be appreciated as really thought provoking philosophy. Popular philosophy, not professional philosophy. Bill Dembski is neither rigorous enough conceptually (especially regarding the views of his detractors) nor incomprehensibly dull enough to rank with most professional philosophers in my opinion. However Dembski does have a very interesting book here, even compared to his previous efforts.

This book is clearly, cleverly, and carefully done. In typical popular accounts, the Darwinian view of change in populations is so often recruited in the service of "survival of the fittest" ideology and as a modern creation myth that the ID authors seem compelled to try to trash them all together to oppose the ideology and the myth as sources of spiritual meaninglessness. Dembski is mostly able to stick to his positive argument and not misrepresent biological concepts the way some ID folks seem to do, but he shares their sins of omission about the positive evidence for natural selection.

The attempt seems well-meaning, and the worldview behind it a feels much more comforting one than the cold reality of naturalism. But we no longer have any reason to doubt that "microevolutionary" change in populations continues to occur to and beyond species boundaries. Darwin's vision was not survival of the fittest, or even just mutation plus selection, it was variety and fecundity.

Clearly the whole worldview here is tuned to see nature as having intelligence and giving our lives purpose from without, whereas the scientific worldview seems to leave purpose as something that we find from within. An exercise left to the reader, possibly explaining why we have such trouble with it.

Dembski doesn't seem to outright reject the modern concept of species or the branching of phylogenies from few to many, nor even the role of adaptive fitness in selection, he focuses on the putative inability of selection alone to produce the kinds of patterns we see in natural history, and especially the information code of DNA. But at the same time, he avoids the positive evidence of selection when it is there.

This book doesn't really introduce any radically new ideas beyond Dembski's usual explanatory filter, and the book is spotted by hand waving dismissals of objections. Most glaring is his very cursory treatment of the complexity literature and his reliance on negative arguments when comparing his ideas to those of complexity theorists. His basic point that they don't explain life is certainly clear enough, but he never really fills it in, which is the whole point from their perspective.

There isn't much support given for the conclusion sometimes implied (though not stated outright) that Dembski's specified complexity argument precludes Darwinian descent with modification. Most of Dembski's points seem as if they could apply to an intelligent or theistic evolutionary process from few to many species through branching phylogenies as well as to one that is completely non-evolutionary.

Also, Dembski's dismissal of competing speculations like Kauffman's adaptive fitness landscapes is downright abrupt. It's almost as if he's saying that Kauffman admits to not knowing completely how selection works, and he (Dembski) is sure he knows, so Dembski wins by virtue of superior self-certainty.

Realistically, in areas where we don't have evidence to distinguish competing speculative theories, we have to rely on plausibility arguments.

Like most ID literature, this book sometimes points out legitimate gaps in our knowledge, some of which could just as well have been written by a very speculative theoretical Darwinist, but it fills the gaps in our knowledge of evolutionary process with the vague notion of intelligent design. Basically it's what's left when we have run out of other explanations. Which means you either have an intuition for what it means and you can fill in the details, or you can't.

The problem is that it makes the inference of design that we normally do in biology, reverse engineering using adaptation as a guide, impossible. Instead, we are left to guess at how to infer biological design from "intelligence." And the non-optimal design of living species makes it clear that such an inaccurate view of biological design is doomed from the start.

The question becomes: "how far can you elucidate "purpose" or "design" or "plan" once you assume that is what is going on ?" A model that relies on analogy with human intelligence is problematic from the start, since we don't agree on how that works. We agree even less on how Divine intelligence would work. There's no definitive positive argument against the intelligence metaphor in general that I know of, but it just doesn't seem to work, and the concept of adaptation does work.

Stepping outside of nature when explanations get tough doesn't quite seem right. I admire Dembski's cleverness in finding ways to keep the design argument alive, but it just doesn't work. Natural selection is too powerful an idea to simply be shrugged off because the chemistry gets complex, and in the end specified complexity just ends up being a plausible-sounding mask to hide behind.

Rating:
Summary: Another failed creationist effort
Review: Having reviewed the writings of Mr. Dembski, I have found that I have been much mistaken in my estimation that Natural Selection can account for the Origin of the Species. I fear that my own inactivity these past years has left me out of touch with the advances that several researchers, Mr. Dembski not the least, have been making in the field of Specified Complexity & Design Inference, & I am quite honestly shocked that I had not realized these counter arguments to my own work -- work that I must now admit, although it feels like confessing a murder, was in error.

Moreover, I fear that my self-styled followers are headed for a right good thrashing of their collective bums if they continue to support the follies of my youth, as it would now be intellectually dishonest to do so given the overwhelming evidence for inferring Intelligent Design that Mr. Dembski has so eloquently illucidated. Indeed, intellectual honesty in the field of Origins, it now seems clear to me, is almost solely the trait of the Intelligent Design Theorist, as those calling themselves 'Darwinists' -- I shudder at the thought that my name has been attached to such villainous scoundrels -- now engage exclusively in made-up quotes, appeals to authority, & rabble-rousing instead of the sort of proper scientific work that people like Mr. Dembski conduct.

There is grandeur in this book, with its several chapters; & I only hope that the act of writing this favourable review -- which, let me assure you, was no mere trifle; my little corner of the Abbey is not what one would call 'wired' -- will in some way make up for all the trouble I have caused the world.

Yours sincerely,
C. Darwin

Rating:
Summary: This lunch needs some more cooking
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A Man with a Superb Mind and Argument
Review: It is disappointing to see one reviewer rely on the discredited Richard Wein, and use the "God in the gaps" argument. (If there is a Designer, of course, He/She/It/They would necessraily be in the "gaps." Where else would He/She/It/They be? Since naturalistic philosophy assumes no designer, no conceivable gap could ever convince them otherwise. NeoDarwinism is just as non-falsifiable as any alternative.) The Issue, of course, is the gaps themselves. And the nature of the gaps, which at this point turns out to be the specified complexity of these marvelous nano-machines we call biological cells. And despite the zeal of the naturalists, the gaps are huge. Grand Canyon sized and getting bigger.

Dembski's book is an essential for anyone interested in the NeoDarwinism vs Intellegent Design. It is refreshing to see a genuine scientific treatment of this subject without all the young earth Bible thumping from the creationists. Dembski succeeds in showing the bankruptcy of NeoDarwinism when it comes to how cells actually acquired their specified complexity. Does this prove that there is a Designer? Of course not. And Dembski claims nothing of the sort. But it clearly demonstrates the current utter bankruptcy (or non-existence) of the NeoDarwinists explanations and approaches the question from an entirely new paradigm.

Buy this book and tell your friends to buy it.

Rating:
Summary: Bill Schultz in his review . . .
Review: missed the context of the notion of 'subjectivity' made by Dembski. Here is the direct quote from Dembski:

"Let's look at these charges. Consider first the charge of subjectivity. Design inferences involve intelligences drawing on background knowledge to implicate other intelligences. The idea that we can abolish subjectivity in drawing design inferences is therefore absurd. The question is not whether subjectivity can be eliminated but whether it can be adequately disciplined so that we can have confidence our judgments. That's the point of the tractability condition. Wein works with a remarkable set of double standards. In place of my approach to detecting design, he would substitute a Bayesian approach, which is chock-full not merely of subjectivity but of a subjectivity that admits no discipline (for instance, the assignment of prior probabilities reflects a subject's prior beliefs even if those beliefs are wrong or unfounded).

As I point out in NFL (ch. 2), specifications and the tractability condition on which they depend are, to use John Searle's distinction, ontologically subjective but epistemically objective (by contrast, the prior probabilities that come up in Bayesian decision theory are usually both ontologically and epistemically subjective). What this means is that specifications have no existence independent of subjects. Nonetheless, relative to a subject or community of subjects, whether something is a specification and whether the tractability condition is fulfilled is objective"...

I wish Schultz and others like him would take the time to understand the way in which terms are being used. Philosophers have very precise meanings for terms they employ. Superficial renderings can lead to confusion. This seems to be the case with Schultz.

Rating:
Summary: Makes Sense of the Data
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Profound in its implications
Review: William Dembski's newest book, No Free Lunch, helps complete the job he started in his 1998 book, The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press). The Design Inference laid out Dembski's rigorous formal apparatus for determining whether an event or an object is the result of chance, natural law/necessity, or intelligent design. What he didn't do in that book is apply the theory to the natural world. In No Free Lunch, he does so. Not only does he tweak and strengthen his earlier theory, but he applies it to biology, and offers a devastating critique of various self-organizational theories, which recognize that Darwin's theory is inadequate, but hope to get information for free. Dembski argues convincingly that you can't. Although No Free Lunch does have some fairly technical sections, for the most part it is accessible to the educated non-specialist. Besides, it's worth the effort.