From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Nov 18 2002 - 00:54:33 EST
Larry wrote:
>Glenn - Bless you, you are always willing to do some hard work to
>make a point. I think it helps in the case of "methinksitislike
>aweasel" that it is a recognizable quotation from Shakespeare.
>See if your random number generator can come up with the likes of
>"blessedarethepoorinspirit" or "inthebeginningwastheword" or
>"tobeornottobethatisthequestion". I'm sure you could, given enuf
>time.
>
>I think a limiting point is that the Universe is only 14 billion
>years old, and contains only 10 to the 80th power particles, so
>that there is only a finite number of trials that can be made to
>ACCIDENTALLY produce the thousands of strategic carbon-based
>protein types all in one place and appropriately organized that
>would be required to produce the first minimally living,
>reproducing cell. I don't think it was an accident.
Let's look at what Dembski said again:
"Now a little reflection makes clear that a pattern need not
be given prior to an event to eliminate chance and implicate design.
Consider the following
cipher text:
nfuijolt ju jt mjlf b xfbtfm
Initially this looks like a random sequence of letters and spaces initially
you lack any pattern for rejecting chance and inferring design.
"But suppose next that someone comes along and tells you to treat this
sequence as a Caesar cipher, in which each letter has shifted one notch down
the alphabet. The deciphered sequence then reads,
methinks it is like a weasel
Even though the pattern (in this case, the decrypted text) is given after
the fact, it still is the right sort of pattern for eliminating chance and
inferring design. In contrast to statistics, which always identifies its
patterns before an experiment is performed, cryptanalysis must discover its
patterns after the fact. In both instances, however, the patterns are
suitable for inferring design." William Dembski, Intelligent Design,
(Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 132
Note that Dembski acknowledges that the random sequence above doesn't look
designed until the key is supplied. The arrangement of symbols in both the
random-looking and decoded sequences are the same. The only reason for
finally deciding design is because Dembski can read the lower but not the
upper. But one must realize that the assignment of symbols to a given sound
is merely an accident of history. In alternative histories, it would be
quite possible that the above sequence would be readable and the lower
looking random. Because of this there is no objective definition of design.
It is interesting that you jump from a criticism of Dembski's claimed
ability to detect design to a position almost equating this criticism with
denying the complexity of life. All I am doing is pointing out that Dembski
fails to make his case with his approach. That is logically not equivalent
to what you seem to think I am doing with your last paragraph.
And I will say, using a Vigenere keyword, I can turn any random sequence
into the sequences you cite above. Dembski makes acknowledges that his
method will fail to find design in spy codes. But if I can turn any random
sequence into a meaningful sequence via a Vigenere code, it follows that
Dembski's methodology can't detect design.
Larry, that isn't the same as saying God didn't create the world. It is
merely equivalent to saying Dembski's methodology doesn't work.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lawrence Johnston [mailto:johnston@uidaho.edu]
>Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 12:17 AM
>To: Glenn Morton; asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Dembski and Caesar cyphers
>
>
>
>Larry Johnston
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 18 2002 - 01:32:12 EST