From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 26 2002 - 15:29:07 EST
Glenn,
You would be a great lawyer. You put a preliminary
assumption in my argument that was never there,
specifically, that I did not believe there was any
problem with Dembski's method. And, you implied that
you had helped me see the error of Dembski's ways.
Both assertions are completely incorrect.
I have never said that Dembski has articulated a
method that will work. So far he hasn't. You didn't
point that out to me. Moreover, your critique of
Dembski's discussion of detecting design was
irrelevant to the point of whether he had a useable
methodology and is, in fact, incorrect from a purely
methodological standpoint, as clever as it might have
been.
All the best,
Blake
--- Glenn Morton <glenn.morton@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Which is essentially what Iain wrote. I am, however,
> glad that you finally
> see that Dembski's method has severe problems,
> regardless of how you came to
> 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
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Dr. Blake Nelson
> [mailto:bnelson301@yahoo.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:54 AM
> >To: Iain Strachan; asa@calvin.edu; Glenn Morton
> >Subject: RE: Design detection and minimum
> description length
> >
> >
>
> >> 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 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. What is
> at
> >> issue is whether
> >> you can positively say something is obviously
> >> designed, not whether
> >> you can always detect it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> >http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 27 2002 - 20:45:21 EST