CC
And, how do we know this, if not from the fact that we know enough about
human design from other experience?
But, the point is, detecting something as different and detecting something
as design are two different things. Detecting DESIGN obviously requires more
than just detecting DIFFERENCE.
SJ
>Human intelligent design can be recognised against a backdrop of God's
>natural design. For example flowers spelling out words of a sign:
>
>"Because mind or intelligent design is a necessary cause of an informative
>system,
CC
This is, except in a trivial and irrelevant sense, demonstrably false.
Meyer (continuing):
>one can detect the past action of an intelligent cause from the
>presence of an information-intensive effect, even if the cause itself
cannot
>be directly observed. Since information requires an intelligent source, the
>flowers spelling "Welcome to Victoria" in the gardens of Victoria harbor
>lead visitors to infer the activity of intelligent agents even if they did
not see
>the flowers planted and arranged." (Meyer S.C., "The Message in the
>Microcosm: DNA and the Death of Materialism." Access Research
>Network, 1998. http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_message.htm)
CC
Again, this is possible only because we ALREADY know about human design (and
language) and flowers. We know that flowers do not naturally arrange
themselves to form words. But, if we did not know either of these things
(and English), "Welcome to Victoria" would be just another arrangement of
flowers.
Meyer is also confusing an "informative system" with "linguistic system."
Genes, animal "design," etc., are not linguistic. A footprint in sand is
informative, but it is not linguistic. Are all footprints, as such,
necessarily designed? Do they require an intelligent source? I think not.
The image formed on Polaroid film of a rock: Does that information about the
rock require an intelligent source? Is the rock an intelligent source?
No. Information requires causation, and that's about it. "Welcome to
Victoria" is information of a very special kind. When Meyer finds the Bible
unequivocally and uniquely encoded in the genes of a crawdad, in King James
English, let me know; THEN I'll be impressed.
Meyers is simply demonstrating his ignorance of both evolution and
information
SJ
>Therefore, there is no reason in principle why God's supernatural design
>could not be detected against a backdrop of God's natural design.
CC
Again, assuming we had prior knowledge of God's way of designing things to
use as a means of detecting his design at all (as we do with walls and
paintings ON walls). But, that would beg the question. How do you get out of
the question-begging circle?
>>SJ>What will happen if "Intelligent Design" can be established
scientifically is
>>>unclear. No one in the ID movement thinks it will make everybody become
>>>Christians. It might even help New Age and pantheistic type religions. In
>>>pre-Darwinian England and USA, a lot of intellectuals believed in design
>>>but were Deists. But there is no doubt that the re-establishment of
design
>>>would also help Christianity enormously.
>
>SB>so you intend to use it as a recruiting tool. That's not a huge
surprise.
SJ
>That goes without saying! I see ID as part of Christian apologetics, which
>itself is pre-evangelistic.
CC
Ah, but what if the design turns out to be design by a mere alien race? What
then? Will this help your cause? Remember, if we ARE designed, this is by
far the more likely type of designer we will find, since it is at least
logically possible, it is non-transcendant, and we are not too far from
being able to do such design ourselves.
Or, what if the design turns out to be performed by Susan's White Buffalo
Calf Woman?
Assuming we can truly confirm design, what's to ensure that it will be
design that will serve YOUR purposes rather than those of some Muslim or the
Calf Woman worshipper. What if it just shows that we and our "universe" were
just created by technologically sophisticated children in another
"universe"?
<snip>