RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Comparing Dembski and Mike Gene, Story of two attempts to infer design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2008,23:06   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 04 2008,22:07)
Let me start by asking for forgiveness for the length of this post.  It will take a lot to show the difference between smoke and mirrors BS and what I think it an honest attempt.
...

"The Design Matrix is a method by which you can score a particular feature according to four different criteria to assess and quantify the strength of a design inference."

The four criteria are…

1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed?

2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?

3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?

4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon? ...


In other words, the Design Matrix is ("It looks that way to Mike Gene")^4.

That isn't all that different from, say, Dembski's approach in NFL of calling the same probability three different things and multiplying them together to get some measure of improbability.

So, which is the smoke and mirrors?

   
  204 replies since Jan. 04 2008,22:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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