In a message dated 9/10/2000 9:55:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ylvisaki@erols.com writes:
<< 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.
>>
Perhaps you are right. Wesley showed quite aptly that the Design Inference
filter is hardly a unique one and although one can disagree about whether his
change made the filter better, it did show the major problem with the filter.
Your excellent posting puts also in perspective the value of the design
inference filter.
It's important that we realize that 1) design has not been shown to be
reliably detectable (in biological systems) 2) a design inference still
leaves us unable to detect the designer and therefor we cannot exclude a
natural designer. Although Behe seems to suggest that we can when he stated
that "By "intelligent design" I mean to imply design beyond the laws of
nature."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 11 2000 - 01:07:57 EDT