Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2010,20:37) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:55) | | Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51) | | I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance. |
That is false.
Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met.
IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues.
explanatory filter
See that last decision node? |
Here's a free legal lesson... when one is giving direct testimony as a witness, or if one is a lawyer questioning a witness on direct, and one refers to some matter that would otherwise not be legitimate for the opposition to broach, that is called "opening the door". The opposition then gets to pursue that matter, since its legitimacy as a topic is stipulated by the side that broached it. Many a fine legal strategy has gone down in flames because someone gets a bit carried away in what they reference, and the opposition then has the opportunity to go after something that could have otherwise been withheld from the trial record.
Note above that Joe G. references the "explanatory filter", thus opening the door for discussion on that topic.
Now flashback to last November when this was explained to Joe G. previously:
| Quote |
| Quote |
How can design be the "default" once chance and regularity have been eliminated if it still requires the critia of "specification" as evidenced in the final decision box of the EF?
|
Is "specification" really a criterion? It isn't really all that difficult to say, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE AN OUTBOARD MOTOR", and call that a "specification", though that fails to meet any sort of technical standard for rigor. (See page 24.) Informal "specification" of the sort seen throughout Dembski's writings fails to impress as having any sort of property of exclusivity. When it is desirable for IDC advocates, the status of "specification" is commonly granted for the vaguest natural language handwaving. Our (WRE & JOS) article provides many examples from Dembski demonstrating this fault.
More directly, though, "specification" is simply supposed to serve as another way to eliminate "chance" explanations for an event, and what remains unexplained by "regularity" or "chance" is assigned to "design". The propositional logic in chapter 2 (IIRC) of "The Design Inference" makes this an unarguable point: "design" is what is left after all other classes of causal explanations are eliminated. Referring to this as a default is simply taking Dembski at his word in how he defines the terms. Wilkins and I worked through the logic back in 2001, published in Biology and Philosophy. There has been no response in the technical literature.
|
|
Talk about leaving the door open- Well Wes you brought up rigor.
Please give us an example of a technical standard of rigor pertaining to the blind watchmaker thesis- or whatever your position is.
Tell us how we would quantify or test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via blind, undirected processes?
As for the validity of "specification" how do you think archaeologists determine rock from artifact?
Do you think they flip a coin?
No they look for signs of work- ie a specification.
How do forensic scientists determine accident from natural cause from criminal activity?
Do they also flip a coin?
Yes it is true that "specification" can be as simple as "it looks designed".
But if something looks designed and cannot be accounted for via any other known mechanism, then we should be allowed to carry on with the design inference.
See also:
The advantage of experience over ignorance- my response to desk jockeys Elsberry and Wilkins
and
part 2
But anyway I am really interested in seeing the technical standard of rigor as applied to the theory of evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Â Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
