From: Howard J. Van Till (hvantill@chartermi.net)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 15:38:16 EDT
>From: "Richard McGough" <richard@biblewheel.com>
> But it is
> fascinating that [Glenn] went on to say that "ID-biogenesis deduces God/THE
> DESIGNER from observational data--design, information, structure...." Do
> you agree with this? Is ID-biogenesis based on scientific observations, as
> stated by Glen Morton?
Glenn is free to clarify or comment on his own statement.
I would not have stated it in the way quoted above. Here's how I would have
said something similar:
1. Advocates of ID-biogenesis are likely to appeal to observational data for
support of their hypothesis that the universe is lacking certain formational
capabilities that would be essential for the success of natural abiogenesis.
2. Somewhere in their argumentation I would expect them to claim that they
are able to demonstrate that P(A|N) < 10 exp (-150), where P(A|N) is the
probability that abiogenesis could be actualized by the joint effect of all
known and unknown natural processes (often misleadingly referred to as "by
chance" by Dembski).
3.No one actually knows enough to make that computation.
4. Hence, any ID claim to have proved the need for ID-biogenesis is
unfounded.
5. Even if P(A|N) could be shown to be < 10 exp (-150), the identity of the
form-conferring agent would remain unknown.
Howard Van Till (just back from a pleasant family gathering)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 15:40:04 EDT