Re: [asa] Explanatory filter

Hi Randy,

I wondered if you were just referring to the bat - but (point of order!)
you did ask whether the video had been edited which causes one to have
to process the question differently (i.e. was the video intentionally
edited vs. was the bat intentionally placed in position). But such
considerations aside, I think one has to say "no" to the question of
whether this passes the test set by the Explanatory Filter (EF).

Consider that there are three criteria which must be satisfied to pass
the EF; contingency, complexity, and specification.

So far we've largely debated the question of probability - i.e. how
likely is it that the event in question was a pure fluke. But I think we
could well turn attention to the question of specification. And I was
intrigued to ask if it may be possible to come by some idea of how
Dembski (creator of the EF) might himself process this question.

And I think we can move toward an answer by making reference to two
points made by Dembski in his book "Intelligent Design" (IVP, 1999).

First, on p.131 Dembski suggests that an archer scoring a 100
consecutive bulls-eyes must be seen as exhibiting skill and mastery as
evidenced by his ability to replicate a precise event - i.e. the arrow
hitting the center of a specified target.

Second, he also makes clear (p.132 of ibid) that "the relevant
improbability is not that of the precise event that occured but that of
the target/pattern". In other words, one bullseye proves nothing, but a
lengthy (highly improbable) sequence is sure evidence of design.

It occurs to me that this baseball bat example COULD be seen as a case
of "hitting the target" (i.e. it is certainly the occurrence of a
precisely specified event) BUT in order to meet Dembski's criteria for
design (to pass the EF) it would need to do so as part of pattern. That
is to say, it would need to be shown that the batter (like our 100
bulls-eyes archer) could consistently replicate this precise event.

To look at this another way, let's say the batter spent an entire day
throwing baseball bats. And lets say that eventually one came to rest on
its end. Would we accept his claim that the result demonstrates skill
and mastery? Would we not be somewhat dubious if he claimed that he
"intended" the bat to land on end? We may be generous and acknowledge
that he of course he DID, but we would be quick to point out that he had
the same intention on every other (failed) attempt.

I think in summary one has to take Dembski's point that one instance of
the sort in question is insufficient data upon which to infer anything
about design. And I suspect that if one were to ask our batter to throw
a few bats and provide more data for analysis (or if we take Steve
Martin's approach and consider several season's worth of at bats), then
the question of whether a balanced bat is a case of specification or not
(and so whether the specification requirement of the EF is passed) would
be readily answered in the negative.

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

Randy Isaac wrote:
> Murray wrote:
>> Consequently, it seems to me that the issue in this particular instance
>> is not whether intelligent agency is present (it clearly is) but
>> another, altogether less complex question - viz; what is the probability
>> of a baseball bat coming to rest on its end vs. the probability of human
>> editing.
>>
>
> Yes. I didn't mean to imply anything deeper. It's just a question of
> when we encounter a low probability event like a bat landing on its end,
> how do we distinguish between it being a rare event ("...not in a
> hundred years...") or having some external influence. In this case, it
> would be some kind of ESP causing the bat to end up in that manner but
> rather editing of the digital tape. Is it a case of chance vs purpose?
> or chance and purpose? or purpose only (of deceit to mislead others to
> believe it did happen).
>
> Randy
>
> 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 Tue May 27 00:54:59 2008