Re: Bill Dembski

Terry M. Gray (grayt@calvin.edu)
Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:08:40 -0500

I think that our cryptic comments aren't serving us well here. My copy of
The Creation Hypothesis is at home so I can't check the details, but the
analogy that I'm talking about has to do with the communicating pulsar. As
I remember, Bill D. uses that to help establish the possibility of design.
To say that that analogy works to establish that there is such
communication actually occuring in natural systems IS an argument by
analogy. Right, Paul?

Clearly, design is a possibility, especially in copyright violation,
watches, car engines, mousetraps, certain arrangements of rocks and leaves
(like I found in the woods the other day), SETI signals, etc. But saying
that design can now be inferred in other natural systems where we don't
have any knowledge of the design process IS an analogy.

Now maybe Paul and other are talking about some other specific aspect of
Dembski's articles.

TG

>Bill Hamilton asked, in re Bill Dembski's NTSE conference paper:
>
>>Question -- does it not appear that his whole argument is one "by analogy?"
>>Or is there more to it than that?
>
>To which Terry Gray responded:
>
>>Yep, that's I how I read it.
>
>Wrong. No one ever lost a copyright violation case on the grounds of an
>analogy. Design inferences are not analogies.
>
>
>Paul Nelson
>
>(I'll be at the NTSE conference, and off-line until next week.)

_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt

*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*

A special message for Macintosh naysayers:
http://www.macworld.com/pages/july.96/Column.2204.html