Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/ 9/05 9:15am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Necessary" on 04/ 7/05 7:20am
>>>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.
>
>The problem is that the "currents of nature" is a
>humongous ocean of which we've only begun to explore.
Sounds good on the surface, but how well does that objection work really? Suppose for instance I claim a watch in the desert came about through the currents of nature. Appealing to the “humongous ocean” argument isn’t going to be plausible. At some point we can reasonably say artificial intervention is probably necessary.
One problem I’ve noticed with such arguments is that they’re too vague and strained (reminds me of some old-school creationist arguments). We can after all legitimately detect design; it’s done all the time in and out of science. Strained arguments like appealing to natural processes not yet discovered can also be applied to the Rosetta Stone.
>This reasoning is a little faulty too, because there
>is a middle ground wherein the currents of nature HERE
>could theoretically be inadequate, but elsewhere they
>might be just right.
No middle ground: if the currents of nature at the primitive earth were capable of producing life, then they were capable of producing life. The currents of nature “here” hardly makes sense, since the laws five billion years ago still hold today, and we can empirically test combinations of those laws today.
Or are you actually claiming the laws were different back then?
>> [Snipped description of the explanatory filter]
>
>This sounds a little like the old "lord, liar, or
>lunatic" argument couched in quasi-psychological
>terms.
Given the premises from which it started from, the “lord, liar, or lunatic” is actually quite valid. And in any case, you still haven’t shown anything wrong with the explanatory filter.
>Attributional thinking, I'm sorry to say, is not quite
>as simple as Dembski seems to think it is. In fact,
>this sounds a lot like something Dembski pulled out of
>his ass rather than something that was shown to be
>true through research.
Then maybe you should read The Design Inference, which successfully passed through heavy peer review before being published. Or at least find something wrong with it before denouncing it. It seems evolutionists are a little too “trigger happy” when it comes to the explanatory filter, wanting to disbelieve it even though there’s nothing inherently wrong with it and even though it doesn’t inherently confirm that ID theory is true for life on Earth. (The same thing holds true for the actual book The Design Inference itself.)
>>
>>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.
>
>This is a really shoddy model. If a deck of cards was
>in alphabetical order the fact of the matter is that
>there is absolutely no way to choose between chance
>and design because both are capable of providing the
>end result.
Technically both are capable, but it is very unlikely that chance is the correct explanation. To use perhaps a better example, suppose the magician said in advance what he was going to do. He shuffled the deck, and the cards are all in the predefined order. Could chance have done it? Sure, but it’s extremely unlikely. Design is by far the most reasonable explanation (blind faith in chance notwithstanding).
>>The basic logic of the explanatory filter is hard to
>>argue with.
>
>(I guess it would be when you make something up that
>hasn't been verified)
Supposedly, it’s verified every time we detect design (and that’s a lot of times).
>>Nobody denies that if the event of life on Earth is a
>>trillion to one shot (by chance), it was probably
>>designed.
>
>uhhh....Yes they do.
Who? I don’t even think organic evolutionists have such blind faith that they are willing to believe their theory even though they know it’s probably false! Given that life began to exist, if the odds of the theory (of naturalistic origin) being true are less than 1 in a trillion, design is the logical choice, because artificial intervention was probably necessary. On what rational grounds can you say otherwise?
>>The real disputable point is whether or not
>>the explanatory filter legitimately concludes design.
>
>No, the real disputable point is how Dembski makes
>stuff up.
The Design Inference did pass through rigorous peer review, so methinks you’re just being trigger happy. You haven’t even found anything wrong with the explanatory filter and already you seem prepared to denounce it.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 