quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
schraf:
We don't know how to detect it. That's the problem.
John Paul:
We have a very, very good idea. There is a better case for design in living organisms than there is for life arising from non-life via purely natural processes.
Perhaps you could summarise this 'better case' in bullet points ?
Also, please explain how we have a very, very good idea about how to detect design, and perhaps you could pass that on the the
marine archeaologists and geologists who are agruing about the
man-made or natural formation of undersea structures off the coast
of India (I believe).
How CAN you be sure that a 100 X 100 grid of trees was planted ?
What would be the tolerance acceptable on that alignment before
you would conclude lack of design ?
Step 1:: Does E have a high probability of ocurring ?
This is the whole stumbling block of Dembski's design filter for
me. In whose opinion is this probability formed ? If we do not
understand the mechanisms by which life WAS formed (and life has
arisen somehow) how can we assign probabilites to it ?
If E is natural emergence of life on earth, I assign that a high
probablity based upon various readings about thermal vents, and
such like ... so I assign the emergence to regularity.
I've even seen statistical probablitities against abiogenesis, which,
if the assumptions upon which they are based are challenged,
reduce the odds to mathematically acceptable without pointing out
that statistical probability doesn't really mean anything (especially
ater the event).