From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 00:49:12 EST
Larry wrote:
>Glenn - You write to Ian Strachan and us:
>
>>>>
>And I still think you miss the key point. If I present Dembski a
>random sequence, WITHOUT the key, and even without the knowledge
>that there is a key, Dembski will conclude that there is no
>design. That is what Dembski says over and over in the books.
>Random sequences mean no design. >>>
>
>Cryptographers often have to do hard work to decode messages.
>this is exactly what our Molecular Biology friends, starting with
>Crick and Watson, have done, to crack the DNA code into recipes
>for the proteins required for living critters. But now that that
>hard work has been done, and is so successful in giving us
>verifiable information about our proteins and their control, to
>form the morphologies and functionalities of animals, we accept
>that the messages are real.
>
>It seems to me a demonstration of supreme intelligent design that
>we have such a world of Biology out there based on such a
>marvelous code, extending back to the "Most Primitive"
>(original?)cells. Somebody's fingerprints are all over the
>Biological world.
It seems rather difficult to understand why you can't stay with the very
simple point that Dembski's methodology doesn't work. One gets the
impression that you think that it is denying God's creation to merely say
that Dembski's method fails. Dembski isn't divinely inspired, at least I
don't see his name in the Bible.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 20 2002 - 21:26:32 EST