"One of the Dembski's goals is to argue that, in biology and
biochemistry, the design hypothesis (extra-natural assembly) should
not _a_priori_ be ruled out. I agree. Design should not be excluded
based on simplistic methodological claims of how science operates."
It is unfortunately necessary to remind ourselves that there are not
a few who would rule out design on a priori grounds. We need to be
encouraging perspectives of science which offer the possibility of
studying entities as designed, rather than just having the appearance
of being designed.
Loren: "Design should not be excluded based on claims that "science
can't detect design." Science alone cannot detect design. Science
can calculate probabilities. Science can be used to detect patterns.
Science cannot detect "pay-off," but in the case of biological life
that isn't even a point of contention. As the example of SETI
demonstrates, scientific methods and arguments *can* be used to help
build a strong case for design. "
I am in agreement with this in principle. I would add that a
similarly useful example can be found in the way archaeologists study
Palaeolithic stone tools. We have a major problem with many
scientists who have the attention of the media - they imply that the
recognition of entities as designoid is a conclusion of science rather
than a deduction from a methodological presupposition held by certain
scientists.
Loren: "I hope that Dembski is suitably cautious when offering
probability calculations for abiogenesis and the evolution of
complexity. Overly-simplistic and already-refuted calculations, which
claim to demonstrate small probabilities, are a dime a dozen. It
would be a mistake to use such calculations to claim that the design
hypothesis has been *proven*. Such premature claims would create
unnecessary arguments for Dembski and draw attention away from the
goal of establishing design as a valid hypothesis."
I suppose the major mistake is in thinking that the systems we know
about and can define are the only systems relevant to the problem.
What we can say is that no one has yet proposed models of abiogenesis
and the evolution of complexity which yield favourable probabilities.
Hence the need for more research on the part of those who are disposed
to believe that such models will one day be found.
The concern I have is that whilst I think the methodological approach
to recognising design is defensible, is can be interpreted as reviving
the "god of the gaps" concept. That is: if all other avenues fail,
and we can't think of any other ways of explaining the data, we
conclude intelligent design. I find a tension between this and what I
consider to be a healthy Christian perspective: that design is
pervasive. What is the link between universal design and Dembski's
"design inference"?
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.