A major critique of Dembski's use of the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems has centered around new results that they don't hold under coevolution – that is, when you factor in multiple agents competing against each other. This was based on new, then-unpublished results by Wolpert, who derived the original NFL theorems. Many people (including Wolpert himself) claimed that Dembski's use of the NFL theorems was flawed because coevolution could indeed provide a free lunch. Dembski wrote a short note claiming that coevolution could do nothing of the sort. That is where the matter stood the last time I checked.

Well, Wolpert's coevolution results were published in December '05. Guess what appears in the abstract? This sentence:

However, in the typical coevolutionary scenarios encountered in biology, where there is no champion, the NFL theorems still hold.

So, what happened to this particular critique of Dembski's work? It died a quite death, apparently. I'm almost disapointed. The coevolution objection I was so interested in examining turned out to be a big, overhyped non-event. It's hard to know exactly why. Maybe Wolpert discovered that his earlier comments were incorrect for the functions Dembski was interested in? Maybe Dembski's response convinced him he had been wrong? At any rate, it seems likely that his correspondence with Dembski is partly responsible for the disclaimer in his abstract.

Incidentally, Wolpert isn't as critical of Dembski as Darwinists want you to think. His oft-cited jello critique takes Dembski to task for a lack of mathematical precision, but not for his use of the NFL theorems.

HT: Uncommon Descent