Re: Whose Burden of Proof?

>From: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>

> 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.

The specific statement for which I requested a supportive reference was the
following:

> I think there are at least two schools of thought in the ID movement
> regarding the casual joint. Some(Johnson?) see a break in the continuous
> action of natural laws and some(Dembski from my last reading) are inclined
> to look to natural quantum indeterminacies as the source of intelligent
> activity.

I'm still baffled by your reference to "natural quantum indeterminacies as
the source of intelligent activity."

> 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."

I am very familiar with this attempt by Dembski to talk his way out of being
seen as an advocate of what I call "the hand-like actin of form-imposing
intervention." So, does it really make sense to anyone on this list to
imagine God sending non-energetic zero-frequency photons into some biotic
system to rearrange its base-pairs or proteins?

>> 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".

Yes, that's the name of their game. Unfortunately for ID advocates, it is
impossible for them to actually compute the probability whose numerical
value is needed to verify whether or not there exist any biotic systems that
possess the ID-contrived quality named "specified complexity." As I have
repeatedly stated, ID has no conclusive scientific case.

Howard Van Till
Received on Tue Dec 2 10:04:41 2003