From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 13:16:04 EDT
>From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
> -I think it would be best to understand how these series are generated,
> first. There may be a very simple explanation. For example, if we found
> something following the pattern 1,2,4,8,16,32,64, etc. we don't necessarily
> have a specification that requires a highly complex explanation. The
> division of a cell can follow the above pattern very easily, and I've seen
> Michael Ruse argue that the fibonacchi series is derived from some pattern
> of cell division established during development. We're talking about an
> emergent property of a system, in my opinion, that is not necessarily
> encoded by any specific gene.
Dembski's "specified complexity" has two independent requirements.
1. Complexity (related inversely to the probability that X could have been
actualized by natural causes). [Demonstrating this entails the impossible
probability computation to which I have alluded a number of times.]
2. Specification (displaying a detachable pattern, usually illustrated by
citing character/number sequences)
I cannot speak for ID advocates (nor would they wish me to) but it might be
the case that a particular biotic system displaying the Fibonacci series
could be specified (it displays a detachable pattern), but not complex
(because it could have arisen naturally).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Aug 08 2003 - 13:18:05 EDT