This is the author's comment to a response to his original paper. Nor does it necessarily imply ignorance of it.
Life is comfortingly simple.
Now, suppose your daughter announces that she intends to marry a Shapiro. I did not discuss implication, precisely because it is so fuzzy and because the weight to be assigned it is so dependent on context. The more important the issue, the more inexcusable the error. That's why it's important to demonstrate that the illusion of entailment cannot be taken for true entailment-because there isn't any. After all this obscurantistic Dembskian scrapple, the last paragraph of his critique is refreshingly interesting.