From: David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu
<David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu>
[...]
>This is a refreshing bit of candor. So instead of simply demonstrating
>that 'mindless' natural processes are incapable of generating specified
>complexity as DNAunion and other IDers claim, he (and often others)
>instead, try to substitute fuzzy and invalid appeals to entropy, 2nd law
>or some supposed ill-defined tendency of matter toward "disorder" hoping
>that the audience will be duped, and only if they object will it be
>conceded that such appeals are, in fact, without any real foundation.
>If you want to take the claim of the impossibility of natural processes
>to be able to generate specified complexity as a matter of faith, that's
>fine. Just don't go around also trying to also claim that these IDist
>articles of faith are a form of science.
It's important to be careful with the term "specified complexity". Dembski's
use of the term appears to mean something significantly different from the
same term as used by other writers, such as Crick, Orgel and Davies. Thus,
when claiming that specified complexity can or can't be generated by natural
processes, you need to state what definition of specifed complexity you're
using.
Dembski's definition of specified complexity is somewhat unclear, but, as I
understand it, Dembski's specified complexity *cannot* be generated by
natural processes. This follows directly from the definition and Dembski's
own Law of Small Probability. However, I don't believe that Dembski's
specified complexity exists in any natural phenomenon, and certainly Dembski
has never demonstrated that it does.
Dembski's labelling of his own concept with a pre-existing term having a
different meaning is yet another example of the fallacy of equivocation,
which is so common among the arguments of ID proponents. If ID proponents
would be more careful to clearly define their terms, it would be much harder
for them to fool themselves (and sometimes others) with their fallacious
arguments.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 06:53:42 EDT