First, the original.
[Quote]
Premise 1: E has occurred.
Premise 2: E is specified.
Premise 3: If E is due to chance, then E has small probability.
Premise 4: Specified events of small probability do not occur
by chance. [Noted as being supported in Ch. 6 -WRE]
Premise 5: E is not due to a regularity.
Premise 6: E is due to either a regularity, chance, or design.
Conclusion: E is due to design.
[... later given a symbolic logic form]
Premise 1: oc(E)
Premise 2: sp(E)
Premise 3: ch(E) -> SP(E)
Premise 4: [forall]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)
[End Quote - WA Dembski, TDI, pp. 48-49]
Note that "des(E)" is simply "~reg(E) & ~ch(E)".
Now, I'll propose an alternative form of EF.
Premise 1: E has occurred.
Premise 2: E is specified.
Premise 3: If E is due to chance, then E has small probability.
Premise 4: Specified events of small probability do not occur
by chance.
Premise 5: E is not due to design by an agent.
Premise 6: E is due to either design, chance, or a regularity.
Conclusion: E is due to a regularity.
And in symbolic logic:
Premise 1: oc(E)
Premise 2: sp(E)
Premise 3: ch(E) -> SP(E)
Premise 4: [forall]X[oc(X)&sp(X)&SP(X) -> ~ch(X)]
Premise 5: ~des(E)
Premise 6: des(E) V ch(E) V reg(E)
Conclusion: reg(E)
And, of course, "reg(E)" is simply "~des(E) & ~ch(E)".
What I find interesting about these two EF variants is that
they share the same logic, but seem to have widely divergent
results.
Wesley