In a message dated 9/16/2000 5:28:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< Does not the search for extraterrestrial intelligence depend on the
assumption that intelligently generated radio signals can be distinguished
from naturally generated ones? Closer to home, can one determine by
studying Mount Rushmore that it was intelligently designed, or must one rely
solely on old news reports about its construction? >>
It's a poor analogy to claim that since we can detect some design in the
world around us that therefore there is a reliable detector of intelligent
design. There are instance where we have enough information about the
designer that we can formulate a design inference and eliminate chance and
regularity.
Wesley Elsberry:
"Third, my alternative explanatory filter retains the common meaning
of design as a reliable indicator of agency. We recognize design in our
day-to-day life because of prior experience with objects and events
designed or caused by intelligent agents. It is important to recognize that
there is
a difference between a reliable classifier and an oracular design
detector. Dembski utilizes the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence
(SETI)
project as an example of the detection of design in the absence of
particular knowledge of a designer. But SETI does not support the notion that
novel design/designer relationships can be detected. SETI is only
capable of detecting signals that conform to certain properties of signals
known
from prior experience of humans communicating via radio wavelengths.
SETI works to find events that conform to our prior experience of how
intelligent agents utilize radio wavelengths for the purpose of
communication. ETI that communicate in ways for which humans have no
experience
will be completely invisible to, and undetected by, SETI. "
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html
Michael Behe's argument infers design from a claim of absence of evidence
supporting a Darwinian pathway to IC structures. Ignoring for the moment the
false dichotomy, the claim seems to be that IC is a reliable detector of
design and that only an intelligent designer can design IC. Of course this
presumes that natural pathways to IC structures cannot exist.
Thornhill et al (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html A classification of
possible routes of Darwinian evolution. Richard H. Thornhill1 and David W.
Ussery. Published in The Journal of Theoretical Biology, 203: 111-116,
2000.) have shown the potential pathways of Darwinian evolution and show
which pathways can lead to IC systems.
Similarly Lindsay shows possible pathways to IC systems
"There are at least three different ways that an IC system can be produced by
a series of small modifications:
1) Improvements become necessities
2) Loss of scaffolding
3) Duplication and divergence."
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/evolve_irreducible.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/behe.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/natural_arch.jpg
And Robison in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html shows a
potential pathway to an IC system using gene duplication.
Dembski infers design from the absence of regularity and chance.
Wesley Elsberry
"I 've read it. Dembski merely claims that one can *detect* "design". Detec
tion is not explanation. Dembski's "design" is just the residue left when
known regularity and chance are eliminated. Dembski's arguments that natural
selection cannot produce "specified complexity" are, to say the least, highly
unconvincing. If "specified complexity" exists at all, Dembski has not yet e
xcluded natural selection as a cause of events with that property."
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/design/rev_tdi.html
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa.html
Both ID inferences also seem to suffer from the same problem: They do not
identify the designer and can therefore not exclude natural forces as the
designer:
Wesley again:
"Wesley Elsberry:
"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. 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. "
Wesley also proposes a better filter:
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 20:56:29 EDT
