Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

Working backwards, one might not be able to deduce clearly whether the
rock was thrown by an agent, fell from the crumbling building, dropped
from a dissipating tornado, was the product of a high school catapult
experiment, or fell from space. Even if thrown, how does this really
change the probablility argument? Perhaps you jest. :-) JimA

David Opderbeck wrote:

> But Dick, we'd still be able to infer from all the probabilities that
> an agent threw the rock. Rocks don't normally just fly out of windows
> by chance.
>
> On 11/16/06, dickfischer@verizon.net <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>
> <dickfischer@verizon.net <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto:d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>>
> > To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com
> <mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>>
> > Cc: "gordon brown" < gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu
> <mailto:gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>>;
> > <dickfischer@verizon.net <mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>>;
> > <asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> <http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html>
> MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke

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 17:00:15 2006