A while ago, I wrote about Dembski’s definition of specified complexity, arguing that it was a non-sensical pile of rubbish, because of the fact that “specified complexity” likes to present itself as being a combination of two distinct concepts: specification and complexity. In various places, Dembski has been fairly clear that his complexity is equivalent to Kolmogorov-Chaitin information complexity, meaning that a complex entity has *high* K-C information content; and in [my debunking of a paper where Dembski tried to define specificiation][debunk-spec], I argue that his definition of specification is basically an entity with *low* K-C information content. Put those two together, and an entity with specified complexity is “An entity with simultaneously high and low K-C information content.”
\nIn the comments on that post, and in some rather abusive emails, some Dembski backers took me to task, alleging that I was misrepresenting the IDists view of specified complexity; that
\nthe definition of specification used by IDists was *not* low K-C complexity, and that therefore, the definition of specified complexity was *not* self-contradictory.
\nWell, I was just doing a web-search to try to find some article where Dembski makes his case for a fourth law of thermodynamics, and in the search results, I came across a [very interesting discussion thread][iscid-thread] at ISCID (the “International Center for Complexity, Information, and Design”, an alleged professional society of which William Dembski is a fellow in mathematics). In this thread, Salvador Cordova is trying to make an argument that Dembski’s “Fourth Law” actually subsumes the second law. In the course of it, he attempts to define “Specified Complexity”. This thread started back in the spring of 2005, and continues to this day.
\n>The definition of Specified Complexity you gave is closer to Irreducible Complexity.
\n>
\n>Specified Complexity has this thing that is called “Probabilistic Complexity” which means simply
\n>that it’s improbable.
\n>
\n>These defintions are understandably confusing at first, but surmountable.
\n>
\n>We have many complexities involved, and seriously each one should be explored, but I’ll have to go
\n>into the details later:
\n>
\n>* Probabilistic Complexity
\n>* Specificational Complexity
\n>* Specified Complexity
\n>* Irreducible Complexity
\n>* Kolmogorov Complexity
\n>
\n>All of these are in Dembski’s book, and should be treated with care, lest one becomes totally
\n>confused. The diagram addresses 3 of the 5 complexities listed above explicitly.
\n>
\n>Probabilistic and Specificational Complexity require a separate discussion.
\n>
\n>Specified complexity has these features (per Design Revolution, page 84)
\n>
\n>1. Low Specificational Complexity
\n>2. High Probabilistic Complexity
\nSal attempts to wiggle around, but low specificational complexity is, in his own words, means that
\nan entity that has low specification complexity is one whose description has *low* K-C complexity. Probabilistic complexity is, as far as I know, Sal’s addition. In Dembski’s writings, he’s been
\nfairly clear that complexity is complexity in the information theory sense – see the Dembski paper linked above, which quotes him explaining why “probabilistic complexity” isn’t sufficient and introducing K-C complexity to fix it.
\nSo – one of Dembski’s associates, in an extensive message thread quoting Dembski’s books, says that specification is *low* K-C complexity; and tries to wiggle around the fact that the complexity part of “specified complexity”, when examined in terms of information theory means that the K-C complexity is high. Ergo, specified complexity as described by Dembski, *is* the property of simultaneously having both high and low K-C complexity.
\nSad, isn’t it?
\n[debunk-spec]: http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/goodmath\/2006\/06\/dembskis_profound_lack_of_comp.php
\n[iscid-thread]: http:\/\/www.iscid.org\/boards\/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000562.html<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A while ago, I wrote about Dembski’s definition of specified complexity, arguing that it was a non-sensical pile of rubbish, because of the fact that “specified complexity” likes to present itself as being a combination of two distinct concepts: specification and complexity. In various places, Dembski has been fairly clear that his complexity is equivalent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-debunking-creationism"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-3e","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}