"Stephen E. Jones" wrote:
> IY>I'm not aware of an example of anything that can be labeled CSI. I've
> >seen claims by Dembski and others but have never seen any explicit
> >justification for such a claim.
>
> How about the genetic code for starters?
According to Dembski's The Design Inference, one calculates
complexity (i.e., improbability) by examining all possible (non-design)
hypotheses. This has never been done and I can not imagine that it ever
will be.
If you or others want to propose the hypothesis that complex things
such as the genetic code are always assembled by intelligent beings,
that is fine with me. But I don't see how you plan to collect evidence
to confirm your hypothesis. You seem to be stuck with a sample size
of one (man). And Darwin's RM&NS suggests an alternative hypothesis.
Further, this is not Dembski's approach. Dembski says that he is not
proposing "design" as an hypothesis; rather, he is proposing to deduce
design by eliminating all alternative hypotheses to design. His
approach is better characterized as philosophical rather than scientific.
> IY>Of course, Dembski wants to demonstrate the existence of miracles.
> >Wesley's genetic algorithms will, probably, not be deemed an
> >adequate substitute.
>
> This is a common misunderstanding. ID in general and "Dembski" in
> particular, do not propose (or even need) to "demonstrate the existence of
> miracles":
I think that Dembski does "want" to demonstrate miracles. Look at
Chapter 8, An Act of Creation, in his book Intelligent Design, for
example. This does not mean that his proposal to detect ID is a
proposal to detect miracles.
Ivar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 23:58:58 EDT