Re: ID: Design vs designer

From: Ivar Ylvisaker (ylvisaki@erols.com)
Date: Mon Sep 11 2000 - 00:54:36 EDT

  • Next message: FMAJ1019@aol.com: "Does Irreducible Complexity refute neo-Darwinism?"

    FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:

    > Again this presumes that one can identify unknown hypotheses or processes.
    > Wesely improved significantly on the "design inference" by adding this
    > category.

    I assume you are referring to Wesley's idea of adding a "don't know"
    outcome to the filter. But I will quibble with your statement.
    Wesley's addition did not improve the design inference. Dembski's
    approach to design inference was impractical before the addition.
    It is equally impractical after the addition. The one thing that
    Wesley did was to help clarify the fact that it is impractical. You
    can't make Dembski's filter practical by adding a one or two features
    to it.

    Ivar



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 11 2000 - 00:54:46 EDT