In a message dated 10/22/2000 3:03:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
> But just suppose that Dembski had actually done this "calculation"? What
> difference would that make to Richard or Wesley? None at all I presume!
So far lacking any calculations, it is hard to second guess what difference
it would make to Richard and/or Wesley. Perhaps it is wise to wait first for
Dembski to do the work that needs to be done before jumping to conclusions
that cannot be supported.
Such presumptions do not further any discussion and do border on ad hominem.
[...]
SJ: And before FJ/Pim presses his "argument from authority" macro, I would
point out that juries routinely assess the relative qualifications of expert
witnesses and send people to gaol and even execute them on the
strength of same.
Wesley and Richard have presented some very insightful analyses of the
problems with TDI, CSI. As such qualifications do not really matter. We
should instead focus on the arguments. Dembski so far has been quite silent
on many of these issues. Perhaps now that he does not have to focus his
attention onto his directorship he might return to laying and broadening a
scientific foundation for his hypotheses? At least it's time to submit his
work to peer review. This would mean that Dembski will have to address the
issues raised by people such as Richard and Wesley.
[...]
RW>No doubt Dembski and his supporters will try to brazen it out.
SJ: Who are these "Dembski ... supporters" as distinct from others in the ID
movement?
Why is this relevant?
SJ: And on what grounds does Richard claim that "Dembski ... will try to
brazen it out"?
On what grounds did you make the assumptions:
"But just suppose that Dembski had actually done this "calculation"? What
difference would that make to Richard or Wesley? None at all I presume!"
RW>But sooner or later their bogus claims ...
SJ: What "bogus claims" are those exactly? Richard purports to be asking for
Dembski to support his arguments in TDI, but Richard has already decided
in advance that they are "bogus".
Lacking any response from Dembski, despite several attempts, one could indeed
conclude that his claims are bogus, especially given Richard's analyses of
these claims. If Dembski believes that they are not bogus, or even if SJ
believes that they are not, perhaps he can address Richard's questions to
Dembski?
RW>will go the way of the YEC Paluxy River track claims.
SJ: Richard's prejudice is clear here, still trying to link ID with YEC.
Not at all. He is linking claims of ID with claoms of YEC. Both are likely to
end up in similar despair.
RW>Those who've supported the Design Inference will be left with egg on
>their faces.
SJ: Richard *hopes*!
It's a pretty good prediction so far.
SJ Mind you, I personally am not afraid of being "left with egg on" my face
over this or *any* ID claim, should it turn out to be wrong. Because ID
claims to be science, I accept that its claims are falsifiable.
ID can make the claims of being scientific but that is one of the questions
that need to be resolved.
[...]
SJ : But I ask myself why would *Richard* be concerned about me having "egg
on" my "face"? If Richard really thought that "the Design Inference and
CSI" was false, he would be encouraging me to use it.
Why? How did you reach that conclusion? You seem to be presuming to know
motives of others. Is that not a bit presumptious?
SJ: Therefore I assume it is just another example of bluff on Richard's part.
Well, then call his bluff and respond to his questions. Just assuming that he
is bluffing might be an easy way out but hardly scientifically satisfying.
So where are the calculations? Where is the evidence that CSI as defined by
Dembski exists? Where is the evidence that apparant CSI exists? So many
questions that Dembski needs to address. Many more issues can be found at:
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa.html
It's time in my opinion to submit the ID inference to peer review. Given the
responses from Dembski's peers though It seems that much work is needed
before such can be achieved. Which makes us return to the claim that ID is
scientific. Rather than presuming this, one should first show that this is
the case. Clearly defined terms would be helpful. Especially interesting
would be to see how Dembski deals with the conclusion by Wesley that ID
cannot eliminate natural selection as the intelligent designer.
Wesley is not the only one to point out that the TDI does not necessarily
shows a designer. Eli Chiprout: Design is "... simply the negation of
regularity and chance."
http://members.aol.com/echiprt/design.htm
"Please note that this is a highly technical and non-teleological definition
of design. It has nothing to do (as yet) with the intentions of intelligent
beings.
It is simply the negation of regularity and chance. Dembski states so in his
thesis: "Thus even though a design inference is frequently the first step
toward identifying an intelligent agent, design as inferred from the design
inference does not logically entail an intelligent agent. The design that
emerges from the design inference must not be conflated with intelligent
agency."9 (emphasis mine). "
http://members.aol.com/echiprt/design.htm
In general Eli has provided us with a insightful analysis of Dembski's claims.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 02:41:59 EDT