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

I believe the priors are somewhat dependent on what the data is. If one uses only physical data, obtained by purely physical devices as we do in science, then a prior of zero for a Creator or Designer is certainly OK. That is the meaning of what Laplace said about the need of a Creator in science. However, if the data content is widened and one is testing for hypothesis that includes questions of origin, say the origin of life, then the priors have to be clearly specified. As for me, if the data constitutes the whole of reality, then the question of what reality is, forces me to include in my priors the notion of a Creator.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Iain Strachan
Sent: Sun 12/9/2007 9:45 AM
To: John Walley
Cc: Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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 11:10:34 2007