In a message dated 9/29/2000 7:40:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
pnelson2@ix.netcom.com writes:
<< Here's a puzzle for you. Every e-mail message you've
sent me is an example of CSI. The messages are real
physical patterns, encoded on magnetic media (although
they might have been encoded in sand, brick, ink, God
knows what). What natural cause accounts for these
patterns?
>>
An interesting assertion but if I understand Richard and Wesley correctly,
they are looking for an actual example with numbers. Furthermore they are
looking for examples in nature of CSI. One cannot merely assert that CSI
exists, one has to show that it does.
An interesting "riddle" was also given by Wesley with is "algorithm room".
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa.html
"The question all this poses is whether Dembski's analytical
processes bearing upon CSI can, in the absence of further
information from inside the "Algorithm Room", decide whether
the solution received was actually the work of the intelligent
agent (and thus "actual CSI") or the product of an algorithm
falsely claimed to be the work of the intelligent agent (and
thus "apparent CSI")?
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."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 29 2000 - 11:46:21 EDT