From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 00:18:02 EST
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iain Strachan [mailto:iain.strachan@eudoramail.com]
>Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 12:17 AM
>Glenn wrote:
>
>>No, this is not Dembski's methodology. He defines terms like 'complex' and
>>'specified' and puts the emphaisis on specified.
>
><Dembski quote snipped>
>
>>Thus, it is not merely improbability that indicates design.
>
>I agree that it is not merely improbability that indicates design;
>that specification and complexity are both required. But I don't
>think that is the bit of the methodology that you were
>criticizing. As I understand it, you are criticizing Dembski for
>being unable to detect design when it is there, as in the case of
>a Vignere cipher,with the length of the key equal to the length of
>the text.
You aren't listening very carefully. I have over and over said that the
only way Dembski detects design is if someone tells him that it is designed.
That clearly indicates that improbability isn't the detection method. THus,
I have been saying this buy you haven't been noticing.
You further imply that Dembski will say that such a
>text is "undesigned". I am saying that the answer would be that
>we simply don't have enough data in this case to make a design
>inference, and I really can't see what's wrong with that.
That is what you say. It sin't what Dembski says. I have over and over cited
Dembski. Let me ask. Have you actually read Dembski?
What is
>at issue is whether you can positively say something is obviously
>designed, not whether you can always detect it.
No. That is your issue. My issue is the question of whether or not Dembski's
method works. You have added all sorts of other issues.
>
>I further argued that it is exactly analogous to attempting to fit
>a polynomial through a set of 10 data points. If the data were
>generated by a polynomial of degree 10 or more, then the problem
>is underdetermined, just as it is underdetermined when the Vignere
>cipher is the same length as the text. There are an infinite
>number of sets of polynomial coefficients to choose from to get an
>exact fit to the data in the data fitting case, and in addition
>you can make the curve do anything you like between the data
>points. Similarly it is possible to generate any meaningful
>message one wants from a random sequence of letters by the
>appropriate choice of cipher key in the Vignere cipher case.
>
>
>
><Dembski second quote snipped concerning specification and complexity>
>
>>
>>Thus a sequence of meaningless alphabetic gobbledygook 107 characters long
>>has a 1 out of 10^-151 chance of occurring. It is an exceedingly low
>>probability. Indeed the last sentence has 130 characters
>(excluding spaces).
>>That is an extremely low probability event. Dembski would say it is
>>specified because it has meaning. But an equally long sequence of random
>>characters, he would say is not specified. Your definition above totally
>>forgets the specified part of Dembski's method.
>>
>
>I don't think it does. If I conclude that a third order
>polynomial gives the best fit to my data, then I have specified
>the three coefficients required. The analogue of "it is specified
>because it has meaning" is "it is specified because it was
>generated by a third order polynomial (i.e. had a recognisably
>intelligible mathematical meaning)".
>
>
>>Iain, I will absolutely agree with you that mathematical functions numbers
>>can be detected. Much of science is built upon such things.
>
>
>Well, here's something we can agree on, thank goodness :-)
>
>
> One observes a
>>quantifiable phenomenon in nature and then discovers an equation
>which will
>>match the behavior. Fine. We all know that can occur. But does that mean
>>it is designed?
>
>No, I agree it doesn't mean it was designed.
Then here is another rare moment of agreement. If detecting a pattern
doesn't mean it is designed, Then Dembski's method doesn't work. There
isn't much more that can be said. My issue is that Demski's method doesn't
work. You keep agreeing with that but then going on to say things that
indicate back tracking on that conclusion.
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 - 11:39:30 EST