Re: specified complexity (was: The Aphenomenon of Abiogenesis)

From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 13:16:04 EDT

  • Next message: Iain Strachan: "Re: specified complexity (was: The Aphenomenon of Abiogenesis)"

    >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