Re: [asa] Re: ID without specifying the intelligence?

A common argument recently has been one based on probabilities. While
the argument is based on an argument of pure chance, and thus should
be rejected, there is another reason why the argument cannot hold IF
as the evidence suggests, the universe is infinite.

In a recent paper Bradley Monton (DESIGN INFERENCES IN AN INFINITE
UNIVERSE) argues that

<quote>This paper addresses two main questions. How does one determine
that something has the features it does as a result of design, as
opposed to for example chance? How are inferences to design affected
when one makes the (plausible) assumption that the universe is
spatially infinite? I will show that arguments for the existence of
God based on the improbable development of life don't go through under
the supposition that the universe is spatially infinite. I will also
show that the model of design inferences promulgated by William
Dembski is flawed, because it has the consequence that one can never
infer design in a spatially infinite universe. My model for design
inferences has the (desirable) consequence that there are
circumstances where a seeming miracle can count as evidence for the
existence of God, even if one would expect that type of event to
naturalistically occur in a spatially infinite universe.
</quote>

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003517/

Enjoy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 16 14:08:12 2007