Another comment on Dembski's Explanatory Filter:
According to Dembski, there are three mutually exclusive and exhaustive
categories of explanation for any "event," including such "events" as "life
occurred on earth": (1) regularity, (2) chance, and (3) design, where
"design" is defined to be "neither regularity nor chance."
Note the similarity between Dembski's rhetorical strategy and the following:
All objects are colored either (1) red, (2) blue, or (3) green, where
"green" is defined to be "neither red nor blue."
By the stated definitions of "design" and "green," these two statements are
true. In both cases, however, major confusion arises when the traditional
meanings of "design" and "green" are allowed to replace the stated, "none of
the above" definitions. For example, when the "neither red nor blue"
definition of green is effectively replaced by traditional associations of
"green" with the color of a healthy lawn, the original claim regarding color
falls flat on its face.
Similarly, when the stated "neither regularity nor chance" definition of
design is effectively replaced by traditional associations of "design" with
Paley's watchmaker/artisan metaphor, (Paley's watchmaker BOTH DESIGNED
[conceptualized, planned, intended] AND HAND-CRAFTED the watch in question)
the subsequent discussion rapidly becomes utterly meaningless.
Howard Van Till
----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 09:12:29 EDT