stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
OE
| Quote |
"Quantity" of CSI
TRoutMac | Fri, 2006-10-06 15:27
carlson wrote:
"I understand your point, but I am interested in moving past metaphors into the realm of science, which eschews rhetorical devices."
Carlson, no offense here, but the anti-ID crowd always claims to want to move beyond metaphors and analogies. Trouble is, they'll jump at the chance to offer their own analogies and metaphors if they think it serves their purpose. The metaphors and analogies are used as illustrations, not as rhetorical devices. They help highlight the path of logic. And they're used because THEY WORK. Which is precisely why the anti-ID crowd wants to "move beyond them". I'm not necessarily lumping you in with the anti-ID crowd just yet… while you might have brought some challenging questions, you seem to be open to the answers at this point. Unlike a few other posts I've responded to.
No one ever said CSI shouldn't be used. It's my understanding, however, that quantifying CSI is superfluous because the presence of CSI in any "quantity", or certainly in lower quantities, signals intelligent authorship. Here's an example: Up the street from my house is a Shell gas station. In front of the gas station is a large landscaped birm and planted on that birm are some shrubs and flowers which spell out the word "SHELL." Now certainly the quantity of CSI in this topiary must pale in comparison to the quantity of CSI in, for example, the genome of even the simplest organism. And yet, there's MORE than enough CSI there to signal intelligent authorship.
In fact, to illlustrate CSI, Dembski uses the following illustration: Imagine a large, blank wall and then imagine someone standing several feet from the wall with a bow and arrow. If you paint a small target on the wall in a random location and then the archer strikes the target with an arrow, that is CSI and is enough CSI to determine intent, which is to say, intelligent authorship. By contrast, if you shoot the arrow at the wall and THEN paint the target around where the arrow struck, that is NOT CSI.
The target is the specification, and where the arrow landed is the low probability. That is, in the analogy all possible locations where the arrow may have landed are equally improbable. But for the arrow to land where a landing is specified amounts to CSI and signals intent. In other words, someone "meant" to do that. It was "on purpose."
With the Shell station flowers, any arrangement of flowers is equally improbable. But this arrangement matches something specified; an independently given pattern. (the name of the gas station). That's CSI. How much CSI is really not important.
Perhaps Patrick can expand on this further or perhaps he can correct me if I've misspoken.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
|
"We don't have to calculate the CSI, because just look at it. There's obviously some CSI there."
snooze.
OE is boring the crap out of me. ID is obviously just going to shrink to being some buzzwords used by evangelicals.
|
Quick call DoD and have them change their present submarine propellers (probably greater than 60% shaft efficient) for a rigid helical coil. The fact that a biological life form has optimized a function to a certain theoretical maximum has nothing to do with ID.
