Re: Dembski's "Explaining Specified Complexity"

MikeBGene@aol.com
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:23:21 EDT

Wesley summarizes Dembski's argument as follows:

>The apparent, but unstated, logic behind the move from design to
>agency can be given as follows:

> 1.There exists an attribute in common of some subset of objects
>known to be designed by an intelligent agent.
> 2.This attribute is never found in objects known not to be
>designed by an intelligent agent.
> 3.The attribute encapsulates the property of directed contingency
>or choice.
> 4.For all objects, if this attribute is found in an object, then
>we may conclude that the object was designed by an intelligent agent.

>This is an inductive argument. Notice that by the second step, one
>must eliminate from consideration precisely those biological phenomena
>which Dembski wishes to categorize.

Perhaps Dembski should therefore focus on the origin of life. This
would enable one to eliminate these biological phenomena since
they depend on the existence of life.

>In order to conclude intelligent agency for biological examples, the
>possibility that intelligent agency is not operative is excluded a priori.
>One large problem is that directed contingency or choice is not solely
>an attribute of events due to the intervention of an intelligent agent. The
>"actualization-exclusion-specification" triad mentioned above also
>fits natural selection rather precisely. One might thus conclude that
>Dembski's argument establishes that natural selection can be
>recognized as an intelligent agent.

Interesting. Of course, if we focus on the origin of life, we can
fairly well eliminate evolution by natural selection since it depends
on the existence of life (and no, I am not interested in virtual worlds).

After life exists, you seem to be saying that both the intervention
of an intelligent agent and natural selection can explain similar
attributes. Your argument then boils down to 'we can't be sure.'
Thus, if we cannot surely say that some feature exists because of
intelligent intervention (because it could be due to natural selection),
we can't surely say that some feature exists because of natural
selection (because it could be due to intelligent intervention).

Now, how is it that you infer the causal activity of natural selection
behind some biological feature that originated in the distant
past?

Mike