Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stonehenge and ID
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 95 (3084)
01-29-2002 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by joz
01-29-2002 9:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:
start with an event- E
Does E have a High Probability of occurring? if yes it is attributed to regularity. If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring? if Yes we can attribute it to chance. If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design. if No we attribute it to chance.
joz:
That should really be called Dembskis bald assertion filter:
John Paul:
joz, have you read The Design Inference or Dembski’s new book, No Free Lunch? If you answer No, then I would have to surmise you don’t know what the heck you are talking about (which is obvious to me regardless of what you say you have read). Believe me when I tell you he gets more in-depth on the concept than I did in my post.
What answer did you come up with for the 100 rows x 100 rows of pine trees?
"does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design"
joz:
In other words CSI is designed coz it is....
John Paul:
No joz- It’s called a design inference. Basically like I stated in my opening of my last post. If you want to learn I suggest doing some research. If you want to nit-pick from ignorance, I suggest you follow the path you are on. I asked you to present an example of a system that is naturally occurring that also exhibits CSI and you have refused to do so. Is that because the only example is the one you gave? And that one is far from being shown to have originated via purely natural processes?
So again- give us something that we know originated via purely natural processes that also exhibits CSI and we will have something to discuss. It’s not my fault if you can’t falsify Dembski’s filter.
joz:
What did he derive it from an a priori notion that CSI must be designed? How did he know?
John Paul:
As Dembski puts it, "Eliminating chance through small probabilities has a long history." He sites Borel, then corrects Borel's Single Law of Chance with the Law of Small Probability.
joz:
Another key point is he says chance NOT chance changes selectively passed on to the next generation on the basis of suitibility...
If he is going to ignore the role that NS its hardly likely that his "filter" is going to "explain" anything...
John Paul:
NS doesn’t design from scratch. It works on what is already there. What Dembski et al. are basically saying is specified complexity can't arise from a random process culled by NS.
When you combine Dembski with Behe's, "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same priciples as our ability to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components" (emph. added), and it should become clearer. Mix in a little mind correlation from Del Ratzsch ("Nature, Design, and Science") and it's close to being a no-brainer.
joz:
JP theres a big problem with your arson enquiry, archaeology etc examples in that these are all cases where designed events need to be distinguished from chance ones.
John Paul:
You asked how we can differentiate between a natural system and a designed system. I answered that. In each one of the fields I mentioned that is what is being done- differentiating between nature (or chance) & design. If you want a more in-depth answer, do the research. It’s not like ID is someone’s whim. There’s plenty of literature out there on ID.
joz:
Evolution is chance mutations AND a filter (natural selection) until you address the issue of the selection for beneficial mutations you (and Dembski) have nothing.
John Paul:
What I posted from Behe covers that, thank you. Nice of you to ignore that part of my post. Your mistake seems to be that you think design voids evolution. It doesn’t. Evolution is what happened to the design, once it was left in nature.
If you can show that life could arise from non-life via purely natural means, not only would you win $1.35 million, you would also be well on the way to falsifying ID. The same goes for RNA or DNA. If you cannot do that then it is you who has nothing to hold against IDists.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by joz, posted 01-29-2002 9:33 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by joz, posted 01-30-2002 11:08 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 78 by Peter, posted 02-26-2002 6:40 AM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 95 (3106)
01-30-2002 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by John Paul
01-29-2002 4:08 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b] [QUOTE]1)joz, have you read The Design Inference or Dembskis new book, No Free Lunch? If you answer No, then I would have to surmise you dont know what the heck you are talking about (which is obvious to me regardless of what you say you have read). Believe me when I tell you he gets more in-depth on the concept than I did in my post.
2)What answer did you come up with for the 100 rows x 100 rows of pine trees?
3)No joz- Its called a design inference. Basically like I stated in my opening of my last post. If you want to learn I suggest doing some research. If you want to nit-pick from ignorance, I suggest you follow the path you are on. I asked you to present an example of a system that is naturally occurring that also exhibits CSI and you have refused to do so. Is that because the only example is the one you gave? And that one is far from being shown to have originated via purely natural processes?
4)So again- give us something that we know originated via purely natural processes that also exhibits CSI and we will have something to discuss. Its not my fault if you cant falsify Dembskis filter.
5)As Dembski puts it, "Eliminating chance through small probabilities has a long history." He sites Borel, then corrects Borel's Single Law of Chance with the Law of Small Probability.
6)NS doesnt design from scratch. It works on what is already there. What Dembski et al. are basically saying is specified complexity can't arise from a random process culled by NS.
7)You asked how we can differentiate between a natural system and a designed system. I answered that. In each one of the fields I mentioned that is what is being done- differentiating between nature (or chance) & design. If you want a more in-depth answer, do the research. Its not like ID is someones whim. Theres plenty of literature out there on ID.
8)What I posted from Behe covers that, thank you. Nice of you to ignore that part of my post. Your mistake seems to be that you think design voids evolution. It doesnt. Evolution is what happened to the design, once it was left in nature.
[/B][/QUOTE]
1)No I haven`t if you want me to mail em to me. I`m not debating with Dembski but with you, its up to you to convince me. Quote the book if you want and if you think its essential to the debate I can give you my address and you can mail your copies to me to read. If he gets more in depth, and you can understand him, then so can you so post away old boy.
Also on the subject of reading things I did a search on http://scirus.com for Dembski and got, wait for it .... no journal papers that he had authored. I did turn up this though http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Dembski.html.
quote:
An hisotical aside - About 15 years ago, Bernd-Olaf Kuppers published a book - "Information and the Origin of Life". This sounds like something Bill Dembski should have read carefully if he REALLY wanted to see what other people have done in the field. I was pleasantly surprised to see that he did indeed site this book - but as proof that "random chance" is not sufficient to account for the origins of biological information. This is an accurate statement, but I think it is obvious that Dembski never has actually read the book. The reason I say this is that Dembski totally ignores Kuppers "third alternative". Section III of Kuppers' book ("The Question of the Origin of Biological Information") has one chapter each for three different perspectives - ch. 6 is "The Chance Hypothesis", and Kuppers agrees with Dembski on this one - it just simply is not going to happen on a random basis alone. ch. 7 is "The Teleological Approach", where he actually takes Michael Polanyi to task for his "irreducible structures in biology" - this pre-dates Behe, by the way. (Polanyi is the person who they named Dembski's Institute for at Baylor University.) Anyway, Polanyi essentially argues that biology CANNOT be reduced to physics and math. The "third approach" is the idea that "...biological information has arisen by self-organisation and evolution of biological macromolecules. It was first developed by Manfred Eigen and later in mathematical form by Eigen and Peter Schuster..." (here he gives 3 references, one of which is another book he's written called "Molecular Evolution", published in 1985). Somehow Dembski seems to have missed the third approach altogether, and assumes a more simple EITHER/OR - EITHER it has to be random chance, OR it's a miracle. But there's a third explanation, called "chemistry" - that says that the sequence (of DNA or RNA or protein) determines its shape which determines its function. There are only a relatively small handful of possible SHAPES, and hence the amount of possible "information" is more limited than Dembski claims.
Compare 1 in 10^135 vs. 1 in 10^8
Which number sounds more likely to you? The former is the number of possible SEQUENCES for a protein made up of 100 amino acids. The latter is the estimated number of different protein shapes that any protein of 100 amino acids could adopt. I agree with Dembski that the former number is essentially impossible. However, I think he's missing the point - it is the SECOND number which is important from a structural perspective - and there is plenty of evidence for the idea that structure determines function (hence "information") is correct.
Then there's also the problem of whether his starting assumption, that the DNA sequence in an organism can be viewed as a type of computer programme. This is a very common assumption, but as early as 1985, people were already starting to question its validity. An excellent discussion of this can be found in the chapter "Is there an Organism in this Text?", written by science historian Evelyn Fox Keller (from Controlling Our Destinies). See also Susan Oyama's book, The Ontongeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. (Just from the title alone, this sounds like another good book Dembski should have read carefully and discussed (but didn't).
Interesting sounds like someone else could do with doing some reading....
2)Designed, but if you knew sod all about chemistry and physics and saw a crystal for the first time you would think that that was designed as well.
3)Actually I gave what I considered to be an example, you disagreed (as is your wont), when pressed on the subject of why you disagreed the only response was its designed coz it is. Finally you posted the mechanism you used to arrive at this conclusion of design and surprise surprise Dembskis filter (at least as you expressed it) is semantically equal to CSI is designed coz it is...
4)The real discussion now is how justified your assertion that CSI must be designed is. On the subject of Dembskis filter it firstly is only relevant if evolution were driven primarily by chance (mutation), it isn`t look into it sometime. Secondly it filters by saying that any CSI must be designed, what is this based on? You, JP, have offered up the filter as an argument from (questionable) authority yet have not posted information as to how it was derived....
5)Fine as long as ONLY chance applies which is not the case here JP....
6)No what Dembski is saying is that CSI can`t arise from chance (which is an interesting statement mathmaticaly all on its own) he (in the filter you quoted) fails to address NS at all....
7)You may have said that you personaly think that Dembskis filter is good enough but you have not justified that view. You have the book that explains how the filter was derived you should have no difficulty convincing me (if the maths is solid).
On another note a search of http://scirus.com revealed no journal papers on ID.... So tell me where can I read a peer reviewed paper on ID?
8)Ok I`m going to do an impression *drumroll*
"We don`t know so Goddidit."
Sound familiar.
Behe`s entire argument is the tired old God of gaps nonsense dressed up for a new generation.
Read these and ask yourself honestly if you think Behe`s got it right...
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html
On blood clotting cascade
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
refutes Behe`s assertion of silence on the subject ofmolecular evolution.
Did someone else skip a bit of research?
[This message has been edited by joz, 01-30-2002]
[This message has been edited by joz, 01-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by John Paul, posted 01-29-2002 4:08 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:06 PM joz has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 64 of 95 (3116)
01-30-2002 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mark24
01-17-2002 4:44 PM


JP,
Since you're back............
Regarding this claim about ID not ULTIMATELY requiring God. I posted this elsewhere but it got skipped over.
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
joz:
And as we have pointed out ID does logicaly demand a supernatural ID`er...
John Paul:
Logically, the IDer for life on Earth does NOT have to be supernatural.
mark24:
JP,
I think what Joz & Moose are getting at, is that if the ID that created life on earth isn't supernatural, then what created the IDer?
John Paul:
That is irrelevant as to how (or why) life appeared here on Earth and then diversified. First things first. And first we should determine our own realm before venturing outside of it. Why? Because doing so may help us answer your question.
mark24:
Could you present a scenario that would show the non-supernatural abiogenesis of any ID, please.
John Paul:
I am focused on life on Earth. Once that is answered then I will move on. Did you see the movie "Mission to Mars"? Life on Earth could be the result of alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension. The problem is the word 'supernatural' is a reletive word. Maybe what we deem 'supernatural' to another entity is perfectly natural. And maybe we attach that word to God just because of our ignorance. Just a thought.
ID is NOT synonomous with supernatural forces (ie God).

People are only exploring your position on ID. That your meaning of ID doesn’t infer God, is understood. However, in further exploring your position; If there is a natural ID, then the question who designed the IDer IS relevant. If you’re not going to get into an infinite sequence of aliens begat aliens, that is.
Films like Mission To Mars explain origins of life, much as Panspermia does, it shifts the focus elsewhere, & ultimately fail to explain anything. The main question remains unanswered, how did life originate? (In this case to create more life). If life were created in a lab tomorrow, the origin of the creating intelligence, us, would not be explained. What’s the point of postulating ID if it doesn’t ultimately explain origins?
OK, back to the plot; ID IS POSTULATED AS AN EXPLANATION OF LIFE ON EARTH. The position I wish to explore is the claim that ID doesn’t infer God. Dress God up as a 4th dimensional being if you wish, at the end of the day, life is IC, so life can’t be the ultimate origin of life. So it comes down to a God, that has no origin, & has existed forever, & to which IC doesn’t apply.
So, I ask again, & clarify, for you to present a hypothetical scenario in which God is removed from an ID scenario, & solves the origins of all life, by abiogenesis. This is what not having God as part of ID ultimately means.
YOU have found it relevant to deny that God is part of any ID scenario, but can you show it when describing ultimate origins of life with ID?
Last (small) point, you clearly are NOT focussed on life on earth, you have mentioned Klingons, alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension, most of which is in the same paragraph that you claim to be focussed on life on earth.
In summary:
Ultimately ID means supernatural, if life on earth means a non natural ID, fine, but what about those natural IDers?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mark24, posted 01-17-2002 4:44 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:02 PM mark24 has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 95 (3117)
01-30-2002 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by mark24
01-30-2002 3:04 PM


mark24:
Regarding this claim about ID not ULTIMATELY requiring God.
John Paul:
This is a philosophical issue- one in which we may never get an answer. I don't deny God Created life on Earth, I just say that God isn't necessarily the only intelligent agent that could have done so. ID does not mention God, only ID critics do.
Mark24:
What’s the point of postulating ID if it doesn’t ultimately explain origins?
John Paul:
Because it does explain the obvious. Also, as I have posted, origins are of little import to understanding form, function and maintenance.
Mark24:
So it comes down to a God, that has no origin, & has existed forever, & to which IC doesn’t apply.
John Paul:
It is my understanding that God, by definition, is the un-Created Creator of the Universe. So your statement would be true.
Mark24:
Last (small) point, you clearly are NOT focussed on life on earth, you have mentioned Klingons, alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension, most of which is in the same paragraph that you claim to be focussed on life on earth.
John Paul:
I guess that is what happens when I try to answer questions for 5-year olds. All of the things you mentioned were possiblities of an intelligent agent that may have brought life to Earth.
Mark24:
In summary:
Ultimately ID means supernatural, if life on earth means a non natural ID, fine, but what about those natural IDers?
John Paul:
Good question for philosophy 101.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by mark24, posted 01-30-2002 3:04 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by edge, posted 01-30-2002 4:18 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 69 by mark24, posted 01-30-2002 4:37 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 95 (3118)
01-30-2002 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by joz
01-30-2002 11:08 AM


joz, Let me make this clear- again. The reason you can not use DNA as an example of CSI in a natural system is because you, or anyone else, have not shown that DNA originated via purely natural processes. The same can be said for life.
Before we can continue- what part of this don't you understand?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by joz, posted 01-30-2002 11:08 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by joz, posted 01-31-2002 10:31 AM John Paul has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 67 of 95 (3120)
01-30-2002 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by John Paul
01-30-2002 4:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
mark24:
Regarding this claim about ID not ULTIMATELY requiring God.
John Paul:
This is a philosophical issue- one in which we may never get an answer. I don't deny God Created life on Earth, I just say that God isn't necessarily the only intelligent agent that could have done so. ID does not mention God, only ID critics do.
But what do YOU think, JP?
quote:
Mark24:
So it comes down to a God, that has no origin, & has existed forever, & to which IC doesn’t apply.
John Paul:
It is my understanding that God, by definition, is the un-Created Creator of the Universe. So your statement would be true.
So who is the designer? Who designed the designer?
quote:
Mark24:
Last (small) point, you clearly are NOT focussed on life on earth, you have mentioned Klingons, alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension, most of which is in the same paragraph that you claim to be focussed on life on earth.
John Paul:
I guess that is what happens when I try to answer questions for 5-year olds. All of the things you mentioned were possiblities of an intelligent agent that may have brought life to Earth.
Ah, yes, the good old JP. I wondered how long you could last.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:02 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:34 PM edge has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 95 (3125)
01-30-2002 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by edge
01-30-2002 4:18 PM


edge:
So who is the designer?
John Paul:
It doesn't matter.
edge:
Who designed the designer?
John Paul:
Non-sequitor.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by edge, posted 01-30-2002 4:18 PM edge has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 69 of 95 (3126)
01-30-2002 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by John Paul
01-30-2002 4:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
mark24:
Regarding this claim about ID not ULTIMATELY requiring God.
John Paul:
This is a philosophical issue- one in which we may never get an answer. I don't deny God Created life on Earth, I just say that God isn't necessarily the only intelligent agent that could have done so. ID does not mention God, only ID critics do.
Mark24:
What’s the point of postulating ID if it doesn’t ultimately explain origins?
John Paul:
Because it does explain the obvious. Also, as I have posted, origins are of little import to understanding form, function and maintenance.
Mark24:
So it comes down to a God, that has no origin, & has existed forever, & to which IC doesn’t apply.
John Paul:
It is my understanding that God, by definition, is the un-Created Creator of the Universe. So your statement would be true.
Mark24:
Last (small) point, you clearly are NOT focussed on life on earth, you have mentioned Klingons, alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension, most of which is in the same paragraph that you claim to be focussed on life on earth.
Mark24:
In summary:
Ultimately ID means supernatural, if life on earth means a non natural ID, fine, but what about those natural IDers?
John Paul:
Good question for philosophy 101.

JP, this is reeeeeeeel simple. Either :
1/ You think that there was natural abiogenesis somewhere,
2/ Or there was supernatural ID creation to create the non supernatural ID, that created life on earth.
So, which is it, 1/ or 2/ ?
It's hardly deep philosophy,
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
I guess that is what happens when I try to answer questions for 5-year olds. All of the things you mentioned were possiblities of an intelligent agent that may have brought life to Earth.

Thank you for your kind words, just answer the questions JP, I've made so EVEN a 5 year old can understand it.
Nice to see you back on form.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:02 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 95 (3203)
01-31-2002 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by John Paul
01-30-2002 4:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
joz, Let me make this clear- again. The reason you can not use DNA as an example of CSI in a natural system is because you, or anyone else, have not shown that DNA originated via purely natural processes. The same can be said for life.
Before we can continue- what part of this don't you understand?

Right lets nip this in the bud...
my original post was.
quote:
We should probably discuss methods for differentiating designed systems from natural ones first but....
Well some of us would say DNA...(But you probably wouldn't)...
The question is if it is impossible to determine if CSI is gained by a law working on a natural system or gained by a law working on a designed system/imbued by a supernatural entity why infer the latter over the former?
Now I didn`t couch it in terms a 5 year old would understand but re-reading my post it seems clear to me that my suggestion of DNA was acompanied by a statement that you would not agree. The rest of the post then asks how you differenttiate between natural and designed systems.
The subject at hand is how you do this and whether or not your methods are reliable and grounded on anything but a belief that all systems are designed.....
So quit the evasion and start justifying your methods JP.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:06 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 95 (3474)
02-05-2002 5:23 PM


JP you posted this:
quote:
John Paul:
Actually Peter there is more to ID than just lack of evidence to the contrary. Design is detected in biology pretty much like archeologists, forensics, arson detectives et al. detect design.
Also explaining something and demonstrating that explanation to be indicative of reality are two different worlds.
If we have absolutely no substantiated evidence that something, like life, could originate via purely natural processes, is it OK to infer purely natural processes are responsible for its origin?
on the study of ID thread. Please feel free to answer my questions as to your method of differentiating between natural and designed systems.....

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 02-05-2002 5:29 PM joz has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 95 (3476)
02-05-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by joz
02-05-2002 5:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
JP you posted this:
on the study of ID thread. Please feel free to answer my questions as to your method of differentiating between natural and designed systems.....

John Paul:
There is no known naturally originating object that exhibits CSI. There is plenty of literature out there that can be read that tells you how ID is inferred. Dembski's filter is a start.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by joz, posted 02-05-2002 5:23 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by lbhandli, posted 02-05-2002 5:35 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 74 by joz, posted 02-05-2002 5:39 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 75 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 6:36 AM John Paul has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 95 (3479)
02-05-2002 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by John Paul
02-05-2002 5:29 PM


So how is it that Dembski detects when design is present? What is the standard?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 02-05-2002 5:29 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 95 (3481)
02-05-2002 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by John Paul
02-05-2002 5:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
There is no known naturally originating object that exhibits CSI. There is plenty of literature out there that can be read that tells you how ID is inferred. Dembski's filter is a start.

OK Q and A time....
1)Can CSI only originate via design?
2)If so why?
3)If it is possible for CSI to result from a set of rules acting on a naturaly occuring potential why infer design from the occurence of CSI?
4)If it can`t why not?
5)Do you realise that Dembski`s filter is semanticaly equal to CSI = design with some irrelevant mathmatical garnish?
6)How is it then a filter and not a baseless assertion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 02-05-2002 5:29 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 75 of 95 (4091)
02-11-2002 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by John Paul
02-05-2002 5:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:
start with an event- E:
Does E have a High Probability of occurring?
if yes it is attributed to regularity.
If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring?
if Yes we can attribute it to chance.
If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If Yes we attribute it to Design.
if No we attribute it to chance.
John Paul:
There is no known naturally originating object that exhibits CSI. There is plenty of literature out there that can be read that tells you how ID is inferred. Dembski's filter is a start.

First, I admit I haven't even heard of Demski let alone read anything
he's written ... however ...
The filter as stated is a series of value judgements on the
probablity of something having occurred.
If we take abiogenesis as an example, how to attribute the probablity
of it occurring, and hence follow through the filter.
On the original topic of this thread, I'd like to say that the
easiest way to detect design is to find the designer. IF we
can find some positive, objective tests for design, then we
do not need to know who the designer is.
A large number of assertions abound as I've mentioned in the
ID debate) that there are no naturally ocurring complex systems.
Anything quoted as naturally occurring complexity is said to be
not natural at all but the work of the IDer.
Therefore, providing an example of naturally occurring complexity
is futile (it's one side beleives iit is the other beleives it isn't
and doesn't progress the debate).
We need a set of objective criteria for designed systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by John Paul, posted 02-05-2002 5:29 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 95 (5457)
02-25-2002 10:01 AM


Bump to the top in the hope that JP or any other adherent of ID will stop by and explain their criteria for differentiating between natural and designed systems....
(Willing to bet that all they have to offer is Dembski`s explanatory (read bald assertion) filter)

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024