From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 22:30:41 EDT
Re post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200308/0069.html:
Glen and I agreed on most of what I said <big smile>, but he then suggested
I consider this point:
> But, Richard, you missed this point. There are coding systems in which
> letters of keywords are used to find the replacement letter. <snip>
How do these coding systems differ from any other? The point remains if you
supply me with a string I will racongize it as designed the moment I
discover the correct "interpretive scheme" - i.e. the coding system - no
matter how complex. Is there a reason the extra step you insert should add
anything fundamental to this analysis?
>Thus, my point is, Dembski's claim that ID is a means of
>detecting design, simply fails for fundamental reasons.
>You can't ever rule out that a sequence before you wasn't
>encoded in this fashion and actually
>contains a meaningful sentence.
I agree, but I think you got it backwards. This limitation on Dembski's test
for design means that there are elements of design that he might miss, not
that he would be finding design that wasn't there. In other words, you have
exposed the fact that Dembski's method may *underestimate* the amount of
design. This seems to bolster his case.
Your ultimate point was that there's no one who "who writes DNA or in
DNAese." This may or may not be correct. But that's not the point as I see
it. ID Science does not stand or fall on this one point of "reading DNA."
The real question is the recognition of design. And this leads me to the
fundamental question that we really should be concentrating on .... I know
you can recognize design in many areas of life. How do you do it? How would
you fomalize the method you use everyday to determine if we live in an ID
Universe?
Good *talking* (hehe) again Glen,
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 22:29:31 EDT