RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 182
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,13:55   

Tom English explains Dembski's eliminative method to Joseph:
You clearly do not understand the logic of design inference. It is obvious in your writings that you start with the assumption of design and purpose, and expect others to prove you wrong. But the design inference works just the opposite way. One or more chance hypotheses must be rejected in favor of design. I gave you the hypothesis that the enumeration can arise by chance. It is your responsibility, as the ID advocate, to show how to reject the hypothesis and make a design inference.

Then DaveScot pipes in:
I expect you to prove the chance hypothesis. It is obvious in your writings you begin with the assumption that evolution happened by chance then expect others to prove you wrong. I cannot prove or disprove either chance or design. All I can do is point to what I know is designed, compare and contrast it with what I suspect is designed, and ask which is the better explanation - design or chance.

After all of these months on Dembski's blog, Dave still doesn't realize that design inferences are eliminative, not comparative.  Dave, it's obvious that you haven't actually read Dembski's work, although you do read this thread.  How about if you tell us which of Dembski's works you've read?

"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]