From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 21:54:26 EST
The above quoted text was my point as well. I think,
from what I understand, Dembski has a long way to go
to make a convincing case for his method, but not for
the reason you offered, Glenn.
--- Iain Strachan <iain.strachan@eudoramail.com>
wrote:
(SNIP)
> 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 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 27 2002 - 20:45:38 EST