In a message dated 9/16/2000 8:28:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ccogan@telepath.com writes:
<< >If Dembski's analytical techniques cannot resolve the issue of
>possible cheating in the "Algorithm Room", how does he hope to
>resolve the issue of whether certain features of biology are
>necessarily the work of an intelligent agent or agents? If
>Dembski has no solution to this dilemma, the Design Inference
>is dead."
Chris
It was stillborn anyway.
>>
I disagree. It took the analysis of people such as Wesley to show the
problems with the design inference. Nor does it mean that the design
inference is totally useless. As Wesley seems to argue there are cases where
it could, with some adjustments, be used in such areas as archeology or
criminology.
Whether it has a future in biology however seems doubtful.
Wesley also showed quite convincingly that the design inference can not
exclude natural forces as the "intelligent designer" of a structure that has
been infered to have been "designed".
People seem confused by ID in that they believe that it has infered
intelligence but in fact all it has done is excluded chance and regularity
(Dembski) or "known evolutionary mechanism(s)" (Behe).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 13:57:05 EDT