RE: Duane Gish in Peru

I have read that book, I find the arguments specious. The book you are
reading has no math in it and thus you can't judge Dembski's math ability by
that book. Secondly, you might want to read a critique opf Dembski's book
by Mark Perakh, who criticises Dembski's mathmatics as nothing more than
mathmatisms.

     “Actually, The Design Inference contains little of genuine mathematics,
but is full of mathematism, that is, the use of mathematical symbolism as
embellishment, often only to create an impression of a scientific rigor of
the discourse.

     “To illustrate my point consider the following example. In The Design
Inference, Dembski offers the following argument:

Premise 1: E has occurred.

Premise 2: E is specified.

Premise 3: If E is due to chance, then E has smal probability.

Premise 4: Specified events of small probability do not occur by chance.

Premise 5: E is not due to regularity.

Premise 6: E is due either to a regularity, chance or design.

Conclusion: E is due to design. (p. 48)

“I am not yet discussing either merits or drawbacks of the above argument,
since my goal at this point is simply to illustrate the mathematism employed
by Dembski throughout his book.

     “Next Dembski writes:

‘The validity of the preceding argument becomes clear once we recast it in
symbolic form (note that E is a fixed event and that in Premise 4, X is a
bound variable ranging over events):

Premise 1: oc(E)

Premise 2: sp(E)

Premise 3: ch(#)->SP(#)

Premise 4: "X[oc(X) & sp(X) & SP(X)->~ch(X)

Premise 5: ~`reg(E)

Premise 6:reg(E) v ch(E) v des(E)

Conclusion: des(E). (P. 49)

     “The above argument, now rendered in a mathematically symbolic form,
exactly reiterates the preceeding plain-word rendition of the same argument.
A question is: In what way does representing the same argument in a symbolic
form make its validity clear? I submit that reiterating the above argument
in a symbolic form adds nothing to its interpretation, neither supporting
nor negating its validity. Moreover, this rendition in itself does not even
save space or time since the symbols used in it require explanation in plain
words.. In order to make the symbolic rendition understandable, its author
had to explain to readers that

‘oc(E)=E has occurred, sp(E)-E is specified, SP(E)-E is an event of small
probability, reg(E) – E is due to regularity, ch(E) – E is due to chance and
des(E)= E is due to design. The sentential connection ~`, &, v, and ->
denote respectively not, and, or and if-then. "X is the universal quantifier
(read ’for all X’ or ‘for every X’). (P. 49). “William A. Dembski, The
Design Inference: eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 48,49 cited by Mark
Perakh, Unintelligent Design, (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2004), p. 27-28

I would contend that until you read the criticisms (the other side) you have
little basis for assessing Dembski's case.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Paul Reese
  Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 6:22 PM
  To: 'Oscar Gonzalez'; asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: RE: Duane Gish in Peru

  Oscar,

  I have been reading a book entitled The Design Revolution, by William
Dembski, and he has a very firm scientific argument that the origins of
species could only be the result of an intelligent designer. William Dembski
is a brilliant mathematician and philosopher and dissects the subject of the
origins with impeccable logic. A must read!

  Paul

  Dr. Paul F. Reese, Jr.

  Assoc. Professor of Biology, Belhaven College

  101 Twin Oaks Dr.

  Brandon, MS 39047

  601.919.2868

  paulreese@orblink.com
Received on Sat Oct 16 16:01:58 2004