Re: [asa] Biologic Institute

If you have both a ==> b and ~a ==> b, it's a sign of a broken
argument. As an engineer if you are going to make argument from design
based on complexity it would be if you have something that's simple
(low complexity) that solves a problem that is what is designed. This
goes completely opposite of the neo-Paleyists. When you have a simple
design it is given the highest praise by being called elegant. On the
other hand, engineers use the pejorative word, kludge, for an overly
complex design. That's why I accused the neo-Paleyists of in essence
calling God a hacker.

But, as I said there is NO CORRELATION concerning complexity. So,
regardless of which design inference you choice, mine or the neo-
Paleyists, you can conclude neither that life is nor life is not
designed. The neo-Paleyists have produced a useless distinction.
Natural Theology needs to move beyond Paley and drop this 200-year
obsession with complexity. As Randy pointed out previously, complexity
and information -- at least as used by the neo-Paleyists -- is not any
different. So, the same holds for Dembski's hypotheses and is why I am
now using the term neo-Paleyists.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

On May 14, 2008, at 5:27 AM, Jon Tandy wrote:

> Rich Blinne wrote:
> "The XVIVO animator argued that the process shown was highly
> simplified and parts were removed so that things could be more
> easily seen. The movie copied the exact same simplifications where
> other illustrators did it completely differently."
>
> This seems to be an example of "intelligent design" creating
> something intentionally that was less complex, rather than more
> complex. I'm not sure how this can be applied to Intelligent Design
> in general, but it's interesting. It could be taken as a case in
> point against your statement about the C-value paradox being an
> argument against design. (I'm not saying that your argument doesn't
> have substantial merit in its own right.) Just because the human
> genome seems to be simpler than other genomes, doesn't mean
> intelligence couldn't be invoked.
>
> But if this example could argue for ID, could it not also function
> as an argument against ID? If we look at something of lesser
> complexity and see intelligent design, and look at something of
> greater complexity and see intelligent design, doesn't it illustrate
> that intelligence is in the eye of the beholder, and that the
> conclusion was either indeterminate or biased (predetermined) from
> the outset?
>
> Jon Tandy
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 14 09:36:11 2008