From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 00:53:41 EST
Glenn wrote:
> 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
Glenn,
you claim to be able to turn any random sequence of any length into a
meaningful one via a cypher code.
I think the critical question is whether you can do that if the target
sequence (1) is unknown and (2) has at least 60 letters (using lower
case only) and spaces (only one per word interval). All you know of the
target sequence is that it must be a correct sentence in any known
language. Can you do that with your computer? I don't care which (if
any) code or program you use to transform your random letter sequences,
as long as it doesn't contain any linguistic information.
For recognizing a possible target sequence (if you don't want to do it
by eye, interactively), you may use any programming, online dictionary,
database, or whatever, as long as you don't use the information in this
recognition program to guide your generating/transforming program.
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 20 2002 - 21:27:20 EST