Re: [asa] Explanatory filter

I think Murray hits the nail on the head here. (With skill and accuracy!)

As everyone knows, bizarre coincidences happen - for example three
people hanged at Brackenberry Hill had the names Bracken, Berry, and
Hill (I'm not sure if that's an urban legend, but even if it's true it
proves nothing because it's not part of a pattern).

Another example reported a few years back in the UK press was of a
girl called Laura Mason (I think) who released a helium balloon from
her garden, which travelled 150 miles and landed in the back garden of
another girl called ... Laura Mason.

But it is expected that "spooky" coincidences happen - when one
considers the vast array of possible spooky coincidences that could
happen in all walks of life from Baseball, to hanging, to letting off
helium balloons.

If the next week a similar balloon story happened involving two little
girls called Jenny Smith then we might suspect it was a fake, or had
been contrived in some way.

Iain

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> 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.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.