"Stephen E. Jones" wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 23:58:52 -0400, Ivar Ylvisaker wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> IY>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.
>
> I would appreciate Ivar quoting where in "The Design Inference" Dembski
> says that: "one calculates ... all possible (non-design) hypotheses."
Page 222:
"..., we obtain the following definitive statement of the design
inference (cf. Section 2.2):
"The Design Inference. Suppose a subject S has identified all the
relevant chance hypotheses H that could be responsible for some event
E. Suppose further that S has identified (1) a probability measure
P that estimates likelihoods with respect to the chance hypotheses
in H...."
The paragraph goes on for half a page and uses lots of mathematical
symbols that I cannot reproduce in a post like this. I substituted
the word "non-design" for the word "chance" because I thought it
would be clearer for people who had not read Dembski's book.
Dembski defines design on page 36 as the "set-theoretic complement"
of "regularity" and "chance" and later points out that regular
hypotheses can be treated as special cases of chance hypotheses in
which single outcomes have high probability.
Essentially, Dembski's claim is that if all natural (i.e., non-design)
explanations can be shown to be extremely unlikely, then we can safely
conclude design.
> IY>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.
>
> This is in fact our universal experience that codes "are always assembled
> by intelligent beings." SETI is based on this.
>
> IY>But I don't see how you plan to collect evidence
> >to confirm your hypothesis.
>
> See above. I am not sure that it *is* the "hypothesis".
>
> IY>You seem to be stuck with a sample size of one (man).
>
> I am not sure what Ivar means. The hypothesis is not about Dembski so he
> is not the "sample".
By man, I meant mankind. Man seems eager to believe that all gods
and all things that generate complexity, especially those in outer
space, must be man-like. But why should this be true? If there is a
Creator, is He so limited that He ran out of ideas when He created man?
[snip]
> IY>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.
>
> I would like appreciate Ivar quoting where "Dembski says that he is not
> proposing `design' as an hypothesis."
Page 68:
"The design inference is in the business of eliminating hypotheses,
not confirming them. .... Because the design inference is eliminative,
there is no "design hypothesis" against which the relevant chance
hypotheses compete...."
> IY>His approach is better characterized as philosophical rather than
> >scientific.
>
> Not really. The same methodology of inferring intelligent cause by
> eliminating unintelligent natural causes underlies the *sciences* of
> archaeology and SETI.
The scientific approach is to propose hypotheses and then seek to
confirm or refute them. Dembski isn't doing this. Rather, he is
attempting to show that an intelligent being, hitherto unknown to
science, is logically necessary. He is making a kind of ontological
argument for God.
Archaeologists know that man exists. They are proposing hypotheses
that certain objects were made or modified by man.
I wonder a little about the assumptions of the SETI advocates.
Searching for strange signals is fine. The dubious part is
concluding that only man-like creatures can generate them.
Actually, if I had to define intelligence, I'd start with language.
If I or someone can talk with an object, then it seems reasonable to
define the object as intelligent. This was Turing's definition of
an intelligent machine.
> >>IY>Of course, Dembski wants to demonstrate the existence of miracles.
> >>>Wesley's genetic algorithms will, probably, not be deemed an
> >>>adequate substitute.
>
> >SJ>This is a common misunderstanding. ID in general and "Dembski" in
> >>particular, do not propose (or even need) to "demonstrate the existence of
> >>miracles":
>
> IY>I think that Dembski does "want" to demonstrate miracles. Look at
> >Chapter 8, An Act of Creation, in his book Intelligent Design, for
> >example.
>
> I have re-read the Chapter (part of the reason for the delay) and Dembski
> says nothing there about "miracles".
Dembski doesn't use the word "miracle" in this chapter. However, the
inference is plain:
Page 224:
"God speaks and things happen"
Page 230:
"God speaks the divine Logos to create the world and thereby renders
the world intelligible."
Ivar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 02:31:55 EDT