RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,17:56   

Not sure where to put this, and I can't start new topics yet, so I'll stick it here. Maybe FTK can take a stab at explaining what ID theory can contribute to this.

John Hawks (one of my all time favorite bloggers) has an extensive post that describes real world design detection in archeology.

Pigment use and symbolic behavior in the Neandertals
Some points of note:
  • The proposed designer is explicitly identified.
  • Ascribing design to the artifacts is done by identifying, analyzing and reproducing the methods the designers might have used, along with demonstrating that naturally modified items of the same composition do not share the same characteristics.
  • Multiple independent lines of evidence support the assertion that the artifacts are designed. Not only are the modifications identified as non-natural, uses are proposed and identified.
  • Abstract concepts like CSI or the "information content" of designed artifacts are not used.

So FTK:
ID proponents like to use archeology as an example of design detection, but why doesn't real world design detection look anything like ID theory ? Why can't these archeologists just calculate the CSI of those pigment blocks and run it through the 'nixplanatory filter ?

  
  10200 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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