NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (Cubist @ May 29 2014,17:14) | sez joeg:
| Quote | Reliable Methodology for Detecting Design
-
Well first you have to eliminate necessity and chance as possible causes of what you are investigating. |
JoeG is perpetuating an error made by many another IDCreationist before him: Namely, that "necessity" and "chance" are causes.
They aren't.
If I choose to interpret JoeG's words in a maximally charitable manner, I understand him as saying that "necessity" and "chance" are labels which apply to entire categories of causes, and you need to rule out all causes in the "necessity" category, plus all causes in the "chance" category, before you can conclude "yep, that there dingus were Designed, alright". Sadly, Joe's track record on these matters is such that the maximally charitable interpretation, in this case, is clearly not what he means to say. JoeG really does think that "necessity" is a cause unto itself, or least that there's a practical protocol by which one can rule out all "necessity"-type causes in one fell swoop, and likewise, JoeG thinks the same of "chance". |
Big problem for him there -- necessity drives the binding of hydrogen and oxygen to make water (yes, including ice, Joe) but both free hydrogen and free oxygen exist.
A fair (standard) die will roll an integer between one and six, but chance determines which integer will be rolled on any given throw.
Etc.
Worse, 'design' is not a cause. There's tons of designs that are never manufactured, and tons of shit that's manufactured but not according to the proposed design.
|
