RE: Variants of Explanatory Filters
Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:30:01 -0800Mike: Otherwise, we might as well suppose that the regularity in
nature comes from Petersen's "Fortean Drops"! Indeed, if Dembski's
argument is valid, how is removing "designer" and substituting "stuff from
the fourth dimension" any *less* valid? This makes the further point that
Dembski's argument is not a complete disjunct. If we are throwing in
supernatural elements to account for the physical world, why must it be an
"intelligent designer"? Why not magical Petersen-esque comets, or anything
else our imaginations can come up with?
>>
Exactly!! I believe that Dembski's problem is that he assumes that if science has no explanation for it (yet) that the alternative is design. Not only does this ignore the problem that we do not know the solutions to all questions (yet...) but it also ignores the existance of a "god-like" force such as Petersen's.
You have found a large gaping hole in Dembski's argument. I posted another posting addressing this and this person (Elsberry) came to a similar conclusion as you did.