From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Nov 23 2002 - 09:00:37 EST
--- Glenn Morton <glenn.morton@btinternet.com> wrote:
> It does invalidate the approach IF every sequence he
> analyzes still has the
> possibility of being designed. There is no ability
> to distinguish by use of
> the methodology.
Glenn,
I think what you are missing is the idea of
statistical significance and probability. I doubt
Dembski claims he can come up with a method to
absolutely detect design or the absence thereof. As
with any statistical inference, it is a question of
probabilities that it is or is not designed.
So, the fact that you can come up with a code _post
hoc_ to say it was designed because it now means
something (when it wasn't designed to mean that in the
first place) is absolutely immaterial to the question.
Heck, SETI has a set of criteria for determining
whether communications appear to be designed. Are you
saying that they cannot distinguish between ET
communications and background noise because you can
come up with a "code" that makes, say cosmic
background radiation, mean something? That is simply
silly.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus ñ Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 13:43:14 EST