Re: [asa] Easter Island WAS Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

On Dec 9, 2007 1:46 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Pim,
>
> Granted there may be some technical distinctions between Easter Island and
> the cosmological constants because one can be described through known
> natural designers while the other can't, but I contend this a distinction
> without a difference.

I'm afraid that from my own background in Bayesian probability theory, I
can't really agree with you there.

The whole point is that your *a priori* probability of the existence of
known natural designers is 1. But you can't place an *a priori* probability
on the existence of God. Hence it is entirely reasonable to make a design
inference when you see a watch on the heath because you already know
watchmakers exist. The design inference is thereby not a proof of the
existence of watchmakers, because you already have independent evidence of
the existence of watchmakers. But I think the ID position is that this
design inference (e.g. in nature, or in cosmological constants) wants to be
some proof of the existence of God.

What if you didn't have any clue if watchmakers exist? In Star Trek, when
confronted by an amorphous pulsating blob, Dr. McCoy would exclaim with
reverence "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it!". Suppose that such alien
life forms came to the earth, and saw a watch mechanism in the middle of the
desert, and that this mechanism was as alien to them as they are to us.
Would such an alien then be justified in making a design inference, as
opposed to thinking it might have come about by natural processes. Might
not such an alien say "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it?".

So I believe there is a clear difference in the analogy - the difference
being you have independent evidence of the existence of the "natural
designers" - you are not using the inference to prove the existence of those
natural designers.

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Dec 9 09:46:02 2007