ArborealDescendent
Posts: 29
Joined: Feb. 2015
|
| Quote (NoName @ Feb. 28 2015,18:43) | No, Dembski's methods have not become more sophisticated.
You do realize, don't you, that the formalization of Paley's "argument" amounts to "out of a relatively small collection of presumptively undesigned things plus one known designed thing we can reliably extract the known designed thing, therefore all the presumptively undesigned things can be concluded to likely have been designed because they share 'thingness' with the designed thing"? |
I may be overestimating current ID arguments, but it seems reasonable that CSI can be applied to biology. After all, some special sciences do reliably use it to detect design. The examples that Dembski gives are SETI, cryptography, forensic science etc. If these fields can do it in my mind it is possible in biology. The big impediment in my mind is calculating the improbabilities.....that's the clincher. If further research makes progress in this area, it may be possible.
I just think it is dangerous to underestimate the ID arguments. They should be taken seriously. I agree that the ID arguments are not quite there yet, but the foundation has been laid. The criticisms being levied at Dembski now may only serve to help him refine his approach. That's why I think evolutionists need to be safe like and openly express "real" design in nature, like Miller pointed out.
It seems to me that if Dembski can show that there are just "some" clear instances of design in nature that's all he needs to change the game.
|
