From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 05:43:09 EST
Josh asked me to lay out my objections to each of the four cases in
Dembski's method.
Four cases
1. method fails to detect design in an undesigned sequence.
This would be a correct answer but because of the Vigenere cipher, it can
never be certain of being correct.
2. method detects design in an undesigned sequence
Given the way that Dembski does his stuff, he needs 'side knowledge' to
detect design. This could be a low probability case where a random sequence
generator generated a meaningful sentence. If it is a random-looking
sequence, then I fail to see how this case can occur. Dembski always uses
examples of semantically meaningful sequences for his design.
3. method fails to detect design in a designed sequence
This is the case of the Vigenere cipher. Without the side knowledge of the
keyword, he can't detect design. But he must be told that it is there, and
that means he didn't use an independent, objective mathematical methodology
to detect design, he used the fact that someone told him there was a key.
What if the guy lies? Once Dembski is given a keyword, he can't detect a
true keyword from one which was made up by the likes of me.
4. Method detects design in a designed sequence
This can only happen when it is a readable sentence. Indeed all of Dembski's
examples are of readable sentences. This then is another case of being told
it is designed. His teachers told him that certain letters in certain
arrangements mean certain things. His side knowledge is his reading ability.
Once again, he didn't use a mathematical method to detect design. He speaks
of using a 10^-150 as a probability bound, but it never plays a role.
Dembski writes:
ì Thus for the tractability condition to be satisfied, side information must
provide the resources necessary for constructing the pattern in question.
All of this admits a precise complexity-theoretic formulation and makes
definite what I called the ability to construct a pattern on the basis of
side information?î William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove,
Illinois, 1999), p. 139
Contrary to what most people seem to draw from Dembski, it isn't the
probability criterion which detects design. It is the side information. That
means that Dembski has to be told in every instance that the object is
designed. Random sequences have the very same low probability yet they are
claimed not to be designed. The only thing that yields a claim of design is
knowledge of the side knowledge. After all, the probability of
ssiwhwkaidsddhastekbaaoiryeaslhe9semsoiuesawqqyweksazoiuuytjfljgjhouooiurweh
uiarnaouiareriuyoiuoiwe
is the same as
ithinkdembskihasnocasetomakeinregardstodesignbecauseheneverusesobjectivetech
niquestodetectthedesign
Both have the very same low probabiltiy of existing. One will be considered
to be designed because he can read it not because of its probability of
occurrence.
Here are the passages I am using in support of my view of Dembski's method:
With a binary set of prime numbers, he says:
ìThus to eliminate chance we needed to employ additional side information,
which in this case consisted of our knowledge of binary arithmetic. This
side information detached the patter D from the event E and thereby rendered
D a specification.î William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove,
Illinois, 1999), p. 138
This shows the subjectivity of Dembski's method. A person who knows nothing
about binary math can't detect the pattern. That means that this method is
highly dependent upon the individual's knowledge base. This is no different
in principle than someone claining to see the activities of banshee's (bean
sidhe in Gaelic; literally mountain spirit) in the world. His 'side
information' allows him to see the pattern of their behavior (howling sounds
in the Scottish glens when a family member was going to die). He knows the
death is designed because of his 'side info'. Now my personal side
information doesn't allow for that sort of thing because one hears eerie
howls everytime the wind here gets over 50 mph (which is often). 1000 years
ago, in the highlands in the winter, when the gales came, it was highly
probable that you would hear the bean sidhe's and someone would die. But
this illustrates that side informtion is highly subjective and thus Dembski
doesn't have a scientific methodology.
ìBecause the side information is conditionally and therefore epistemically
independent of the event, any pattern constructed from this side information
is obtained without recourse to the event. In this way any pattern that is
constructed from such side information avoids the charge of being ad hoc.
These then are the detachable patterns. These are the specifications.î
William Dembski, Intelligent Design, (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1999), p. 139
Yes, knowledge of bean sidhe behavior is definitely epistemologically
independent of the event.
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 : Mon Nov 25 2002 - 11:32:25 EST