Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/ 6/05 8:56pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "But are they really?" on 04/ 3/05 8:55pm
> (2) naturalistic means are insufficient to
>>produce those structures.
>
>This is quite an inference.
Yes.
>>Basically, it’s for the
>>same sort of reasons we can deduce a watch found in
>>the desert was created artificially.
>
>Except that life isn't a watch.
No, but the same basic principles still apply (e.g. the explanatory filter). If the watch began to exist and the currents of nature are not reasonably capable of creating a watch, intelligent design is the most rational explanation. If life on Earth began to exist and the currents of nature are not reasonably capable of creating it, then intelligent design is the most rational explanation.
>>Where? I admit that we cannot directly detect
>>the intelligent agency (i.e. no eyewitnesses around
>>billions of years ago to see the designer do it) but
>>there are other ways to detect artificial intervention
>>e.g. the explanatory filter.
>
>You've never really explained how the explanatory
>filter works, or why it should be right. Perhaps now
>would be a good time...
I only know the basics. For more mathematical and technical detail feel free to read The Design Inference by William Dembski.
Basically it works like this:
{Start}
|
[HP?]-->Yes-->{Law}
|
NO
|
[IP?]-->Yes-->{Chance}
|
NO
|
[sp/SP]-->Yes-->{Design}
|
NO
|
{Chance}
The explanatory filter attempts to discern the cause for event E. In short, it asks three questions: does Law explain it? Does Chance explain it? If neither, then design is chosen. To start off with, the filter asks if event E is highly probable (HP). HP means that given certain antecedent conditions, event E will always or practically always happen. If yes for HP, then “law” is the explanation. Any event the result of physical laws will of course stop here. If law does not explain it, we go down to intermediate probability (IP). If the event E can be expected to occur by chance under ordinary circumstances, then it stops here and “chance” is the explanation chosen. Rolling snake eyes with a pair of fair dice is an IP event. A person winning the lottery (once we factor in other people playing) is also an IP event. Next we get into the sp/SP (specification/small probability) node. We must also ask if it meets the specification criterion. If so, then “design” is chosen. What is the specification? Dembski explains it:
The problem is that the exceeding improbability is by itself not enough to preclude something from happening by chance.
Invariably, what is needed to eliminate chance is that the event in question conform to a pattern. Not just any pattern will do, however. Some patterns can legitimately be employed to eliminate chance whereas others cannot.
A bit of terminology will prove helpful here. The "good" patterns will be called specifications. Specifications are the non-ad hoc patterns that can legitimately be used to eliminate chance and warrant a design inference. In contrast, the "bad" patterns may be called fabrications. Fabrications are the ad hoc patterns that cannot legitimately be used to eliminate chance.
For instance, suppose someone says they’re about to do a trick with a deck of cards. After shuffling, every card in the deck is ordered from ace to King, the suits in alphabetical order. The specification criterion has passed, and you can rationally attribute design. If however the order is something like: 9 of diamonds, King of Clubs, 2 of hearts, 7 of hearts… the specification criterion has not passed. And you can probably attribute chance to the shuffled deck and conclude no special trick was done.
The basic logic of the explanatory filter is hard to argue with. Indeed, it is merely a representation of what is commonly done and how copyright offices identify theft of intellectual property; how forensic scientists deduce the cause of death (natural causes, accident, or murder); how the SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) works; and how statisticians and computer scientists distinguish between random and non-random strings of digits. Nobody denies that if the event of life on Earth is a trillion to one shot (by chance), it was probably designed. The real disputable point is whether or not the explanatory filter legitimately concludes design. After all, if law or chance adequately explain life on Earth, ID theory is falsified.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
