Reflectorites
Sorry this is so late.
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 23:58:52 -0400, Ivar Ylvisaker wrote:
[...]
>>IY>I'm not aware of an example of anything that can be labeled CSI. I've
>>>seen claims by Dembski and others but have never seen any explicit
>>>justification for such a claim.
>SJ>How about the genetic code for starters?
IY>According to Dembski's The Design Inference, one calculates
>complexity (i.e., improbability) by examining all possible (non-design)
>hypotheses. This has never been done and I can not imagine that it ever
>will be.
I would appreciate Ivar quoting where in "The Design Inference" Dembski
says that: "one calculates ... all possible (non-design) hypotheses."
IY>If you or others want to propose the hypothesis that complex things
>such as the genetic code are always assembled by intelligent beings,
>that is fine with me.
This is in fact our universal experience that codes "are always assembled
by intelligent beings." SETI is based on this.
IY>But I don't see how you plan to collect evidence
>to confirm your hypothesis.
See above. I am not sure that it *is* the "hypothesis".
IY>You seem to be stuck with a sample size of one (man).
I am not sure what Ivar means. The hypothesis is not about Dembski so he
is not the "sample".
IY>And Darwin's RM&NS suggests an alternative hypothesis.
In fact Darwinists like Dawkins claims that " Darwin's RM&NS" is the
*only* "alternative hypothesis":
"More, I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian
world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory
that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence. This
makes it a doubly satisfying theory. A good case can be made that
Darwinism is true, not just on this planet but all over the universe
wherever life may be found. (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," 1991, reprint, p.xiv)
and
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. The essence of life
is statistical improbability on a colossal scale. Whatever is the
explanation for life, therefore, it cannot be chance. The true
explanation for the existence of life must embody the very antithesis
of chance. The antithesis of chance is nonrandom survival, properly
understood. Nonrandom survival, improperly understood, is not the
antithesis of chance, it is chance itself. There is a continuum
connecting these two extremes, and it is the continuum from single-
step selection to cumulative selection. Single-step selection is just
another way of saying pure chance. This is what I mean by
nonrandom survival improperly understood. Cumulative selection,
by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, the only workable
explanation that has ever been proposed, for the existence of life's
complex design." (Dawkins R., 1991, p.317)
IY>Further, this is not Dembski's approach. Dembski says that he is not
>proposing "design" as an hypothesis; rather, he is proposing to deduce
>design by eliminating all alternative hypotheses to design.
I would like appreciate Ivar quoting where "Dembski says that he is not
proposing `design' as an hypothesis."
IY>His approach is better characterized as philosophical rather than
>scientific.
Not really. The same methodology of inferring intelligent cause by
eliminating unintelligent natural causes underlies the *sciences* of
archaeology and SETI.
>>IY>Of course, Dembski wants to demonstrate the existence of miracles.
>>>Wesley's genetic algorithms will, probably, not be deemed an
>>>adequate substitute.
>SJ>This is a common misunderstanding. ID in general and "Dembski" in
>>particular, do not propose (or even need) to "demonstrate the existence of
>>miracles":
IY>I think that Dembski does "want" to demonstrate miracles. Look at
>Chapter 8, An Act of Creation, in his book Intelligent Design, for
>example.
I have re-read the Chapter (part of the reason for the delay) and Dembski
says nothing there about "miracles".
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.1)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 18:02:24 EDT