From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan@eudoramail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 23 2000 - 20:43:32 EST
On 23 Nov 2002 20:32:23 +010 Stein A. Stromme wrote:
>[Iain Strachan]
>
>| Suppose you send me 10 pairs of points (x(i), y(i)) for i=1 to 10.
>| You don't tell me anything about whether it's designed or not
>| designed.
>|
>| I claim that I can tell you if there is a correlation between the
>| variables (for "correlation" read "design") simply via the
>| methodology of using Minimum Description Length. If I find such a
>| correlation, it is useful to me because I can interpolate between the
>| specified x(i) points to make new predictions from my model. Here's
>| how I do it.
>
>You detect "correlation", which is hardly surprising, but what is the
>connection to "design"?
>
I think that is a sensible question, and closer to the heart of the
ID debate than what has been going on before. What I am saying is
that the objections Glenn is raising to Dembski can just as easily be
applied to the detection of correlation, as the methodology (which I
have described in terms of description length) is exactly analagous.
It is a method of detecting non-random phenomena, of which "design"
is one example, and correlation is another. This was simply
addressing Glenn's point. It remains a debatable point as to whether
if you find a sequence (such as a DNA code) that has a probability of
less than Dembski's "Universal Probability Bound" of 10^-150, that
you can reasonably attribute that to "Intelligent Design", or whether
you might equally say "Design by Evolution". But I was not
addressing that particular point.
Hope that clarifies things.
Iain.
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail
account at http://www.eudoramail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 16:52:39 EST