Over in the ID Quiz thread at Uncommon Descent, Mark Frank asks;
“Here’s quiz on ID for you ID proponents:
On page 21 of “Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence” William Dembksi defines the context dependent specified complexity ofgiven
as
Consider the context of the bacterial flagellum.
1. What is
2. What is the function?
3. How is
4. What is
5. How isestimated?
6.is meant to be a probability. Under what conditions might the answer exceed 1?”
given 
as ![-log_2[M\cdot N\cdot \varphi_S(T)\cdot P(T|H)]](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-e8afc353618be80af64fbcec7564a345_l3.png "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
?
estimated?
is meant to be a probability. Under what conditions might the answer exceed 1?”This seems a fair question, asking IDists to use their own proposed methodology to detect design, empirically.
But instead of heartily embracing this opportunity to show the power of ID, he is set upon.
Joe moans that
“Really Mark? Then tell us how to determine the probability wrt unguided evolution. If you know the answers to your questions you should be able to do that.”
Sorry Joe, it’s your methodology, do your own work, if you can.
KirosFocus has a length moan from large numbers and incredulity, finishing with;
“We cannot stop such from those tactics but we can expose them and red ring fence off those who insist on such tactics.”
STOP. RIGHT. THERE.
If you can’t employ your own design detection methodology it is no ones fault but your own.
Either the methodology is unusable,
OR non of you are smart enough to use it,
OR you’re all secretly supports of Darwinian evolution and are making ID look as ridiculous as possible.
All Mark Frank has asked is for you to employ your own methodology. You can’t. ID is intellectually bankrupt, and only addressing the required calculations will change that.
[Edit: symbols latexed by Lizzie]