Re: Whose Burden of Proof?

Howard wrote:
> 1) Could you supply the reference for this? It does not sound at all like
> Dembski.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idcomingclean.htm

Dembski writes:
"But what if the designer is not in the business of moving particles but of
imparting information? In that case nature moves its own particles, but an
intelligence nonetheless guides the arrangement which those particles take."

While he may not be committing to quantum indeterminacies as the locus of
intelligent activity, he sees it as viable option.

Dembski writes:
"How much energy is required to impart information? We have sensors that can
detect quantum events and amplify them to the macroscopic level. What's
more, the energy in quantum events is proportional to frequency or inversely
proportional to wavelength. And since there is no upper limit to the
wavelength of, for instance, electromagnetic radiation, there is no lower
limit to the energy required to impart information. In the limit, a designer
could therefore impart information into the universe without inputting any
energy at all. Whether the designer works through quantum mechanical effects
is not ultimately the issue here. Certainly quantum mechanics is much more
hospitable to an information processing view of the universe than the older
mechanical models."

> 3) Some people try to use quantum indeterminacies as a place where divine
> determination is obscured from plain view, but I doubt that such a
strategy
> would satisfy ID advocates. One of the pillars of the ID theology is that
> divine creative action makes a __detectable__ difference.

Surely they are not saying they can "catch God in the act". The
<__detectable__ difference> for Dembski, I would guess, is "specified
complexity".

Steve Petermann
Received on Tue Dec 2 09:36:18 2003