"Let 's not deal with assumptions , Monty , although I do n't think that 's the word you mean . Cite precisely where Dembski has published an application of his explanatory filter which has detected design in nature . Let 's progress from you referring to a second hand report to the actual published paper ."
"Oh , WJA , what a neat little trick . The claim had been made by your side ... that he had n't published an attempt to apply his filter . And , that he was running scarred . Are you now asking me to show where he has successfully demonstrated his filter , or are you asking me if he 's attempted to demonstrate his filter ... ? And now you want his publication in a particular form too ! Another slight of hand . Despite this I countered that he has published . I said Dembski had come up with a filter The accusation was that he had n't applied this to a biological system . Yet everyone seems to be able to critique this 'invisible ' application . Now with typical aplomb WJA chimes in and you do n't go down the path of SLP in actually making any claim . You want me to come up with the goods . This is the neat trick . You 've diverted things away from SLP 's ludicrous and biased claim . The claim was made by SLP without any proof . The onus is on SLP to provide such proof . I have shown otherwise even if it is 'second hand evidence ' . The inference from all the critiques quite clearly suggest that they have seen it applied , and reject it as a failure . Nice try WJA . A small shift again of the argument . However , because I 'm trying to educate you I suggest your read the following . '' In the actual encounter , Dembski began by overviewing his methods for design detection as developed in The Design Inference . He then sketched how these methods apply to biology and why he thought they provided in-principle objections to undirected natural causes , including Kauffman 's self-organizational processes , generating the key item that his methods detect , namely , specified complexity or complex specified information . Dembski developed his argument as follows : the only way for self-organizational , Darwinian , and other naturalistic methods to generate specified complexity is by in essence dissolving the actual complexity ( or improbability ) . What seems highly improbable is therefore no longer improbable once one knows the right naturalistic process . Dembski indicated that there were good reasons to think that no such reduction of complexity or improbability would be possible in the case of systems like the bacterial flagellum . He also adverted to some of the techniques developed in his forthcoming book titled `` No Free Lunch `` for computing the probabilities of discrete combinatorial objects like the bacterial flagellum. `` http : //www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_011119.htm This suggests that a book is about to appear mysteriously out of the ether ... So , go read the book `` No Free Lunch : Why Specified Complexity Can not Be Purchased Without Intelligence `` . Unless you think it 's not 'published ' . Oh , look it has been published ! It 's a miracle . As far back as post 29 the answer was provided for one and all by SLP who wrote : `` Unfortunately , Dembski and his `` explanatory `` filter are more hot air than substance . He has claiming to have 'discovered ' desing ( sic ) in nature by using the 'filter ' , but for some strange reason , he has yet to publish his amazing discovery . he said he was going to do it in `` Mere Creation `` , then he said it would be iun ( sic ) No Free Lunch - so tell us , IS IT actually in his newest collection of apocryphal tall tales , or is is ( sic ) just assumed that he has done so ? `` The simple answer is 'yes he has ' . This mystery book exists . It 's even been criticised by people on your side `` In his book , No Free Lunch , Dembski presents the bacterial flagellum as the premier example of a biological system that , because he judges it to be both complex and specified , must have been actualized by the form-conferring action of an unembodied intelligent agent . However , a critical examination of Dembski ? s case reveals that , 1 ) is is built on unorthodox and inconsistently applied definitions of both ? complex ? and ? specified , ? 2 ) it employs a concept of the flagellum ? s assembly that is radically out of touch with contemporary genetics and developmental biology , and 3 ) it fails to demonstrate that the flagellum is either ? complex ? or ? specified ? in the manner required to make his case . If the bacterial flagellum is supposed to demonstrate ID , then ID is a failure. `` http : //www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimate ... =1 ; t=000057 ; p= As I said , people on your side are out there criticising him all the time . How could they unless he had published ? Also , it is one thing to say that he has n't attempted to apply the filter , then to say that he has attempted to apply it and failed . Game , set and match"
"Let 's progress from you referring to a second hand report to the actual published paper ."
"that he had n't published an attempt to apply his filter ."