Re: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

It's easy to see where Dembski makes his mistake.

Let's say I throw a rock out of a window and it lands on a lady's head. Out of the billions of people on earth, what are the chances the rock would strike this particular person. Of all the countless places that lady could be at that time, what are the odds she would be under my window at precisely the right moment to receive the rock? What are the odds that women would be born in the first place? How many procreation events had to have happened in the past to produce this women? What are the odds I would throw a rock anyway, and how many places could it land. And etc, etc. So according to Dembski's hypothesis, either the event couldn't happen, or God caused the rock to strike the lady, probably out of retribution because she listens to Dembski.

~Dick

> "Dembski outlines a ten-step Generic Chance Elimination Argument:
> 1.. One learns that some event has occurred.
>
> 2.. Examining the circumstances under which the event occurred,
> one finds
> that the event could only have been produced by a certain chance
> process (or
> processes).
>
> 3.. One identifies a pattern which characterizes the event.
>
> 4.. One calculates the probability of the event given the chance
> hypothesis.
>
> 5.. One determines what probabilistic resources were available for
>
> producing the event via the chance hypothesis.
>
> 6.. On the basis of the probabilistic resources, one calculates
> the
> probability of the event's occurring by chance once out of all the
> available
> opportunities to occur.
>
> 7.. One finds that the above probability is sufficiently small.
>
> 8.. One identifies a body of information which is independent of
> the
> event's occurrence.
>
> 9.. One determines that one can formulate the pattern referred to
> in step
> (3) on the basis of this body of independent information.
>
> 10.. One is warranted in inferring that the event did not occur by
> chance.
>
> This is a simplification of Dembski's analysis, which he develops
> and
> defends with painstaking rigor and detail.
>
> Dembski's analysis will be of interest to all persons who are
> concerned with
> detecting design, including forensic scientists, detectives,
> insurance fraud
> investigators, exposers of scientific data falsification,
> cryptographers,
> and SETI investigators. Intriguingly, it will also be of interest to
> natural
> theologians. For in contemporary cosmology the heated debate
> surrounding the
> fine-tuning of the universe and the so-called Anthropic Principle
> will be
> greatly clarified by Dembski's Law of Small Probability.
>
> Consider the application of the above Generic Chance Elimination
> Argument to
> the fine-tuning of the universe:
>
> 1.. One learns that the physical constants and quantities given in
> the Big
> Bang possess certain values.
>
> 2.. Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred,
> one
> finds that there is no Theory of Everything which would render
> physically
> necessary the values of all the constants and quantities, so they
> must be
> attributed to sheer accident.
>
> 3.. One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities
> are
> incomprehensibly fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent,
> carbon-based
> life.
>
> 4.. The probability of each value and of all the values together
> occurring
> by chance is vanishingly small.
>
> 5.. There is only one universe; it is illicit in the absence of
> evidence
> to multiply one's probabilistic resources (i.e., postulate a World
> Ensemble
> of universes) simply to avert the design inference.
>
> 6.. Given that the universe has occurred only once, the
> probability of the
> constants and quantities' all having the values they do remains
> vanishingly
> small.
>
> 7.. This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate
> chance.
>
> 8.. One has physical information concerning the necessary
> conditions for
> intelligent, carbon-based life (e.g., certain temperature range,
> existence
> of certain elements, certain gravitational and electro-magnetic
> forces,
> etc.).
>
> 9.. This information about the finely-tuned conditions requisite
> for a
> life- permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in
> step
> (3).
>
> 10.. One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and
>
> quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance.
>
> One is thus justified in inferring that the initial conditions of
> the
> universe are due to design."
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
> To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> Cc: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>;
> <dickfischer@verizon.net>;
> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference
>
>
> > jack syme wrote:
> >
> >> But isnt the fine tuning of the physical constants of the
> universe, used
> >> as an example of specified complexity by the ID folks?
> >
> > No. Specified complexity is something more specific than fine
> tuning.
> > Fine tuning (e.g. the anthropic principle) was around well before
> Dembski
> > introduced the concept of specified complexity. I have no problems
> with
> > fine tuning. I do have problems with specified complexity in
> biological
> > systems.
> > Don
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 16 16:26:15 2006