Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 15 2012,08:59)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,06:57)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,18:38)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,14:56)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)|
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.
I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.
Gary, text highlighted in blue indicates a link. That is, a clickable Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to click upon to access. These are usually provided to ensure that relevant information is readily accessible.
The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance
So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.
I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.
I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.
There's that whole response where you went on at length about trying to look like you actually understood what was meant by "rarefied design" and failed, so while it is stipulated that you weren't paying attention, the evidence says that, yes, you did want to get involved in it.
Until it became obvious that you were completely off-base, at which point, yes, you wanted not to be involved. Your rate of abandonment of claims did make a pretty good predictor of that reaction.
I meant what I said about my not being the one to talk to about concepts you need to argue with William Dembski over. From the way they list all the possibilities they could think of to explain "Life" and other things it's more of a brainstorming session, not text of a theory explaining a model.
Our guru for the "What is Life?" question became professor Koeslag in South Africa:
Johan H Koeslag, "Medical Physiology :: What is Life?", Stellenbosch University, South Africa
William Dembski adds to the theory the thinking about cells being like cities which are built and maintained by a molecular workforce. The Starship - We Built This City went out to him for such educational hoopla over the inside a cell video he talked over in a lecture.
It's not that I don't agree the page you showed me does not add up to a theory with a model to experiment with. That just is not where William is, in the logic of this theory that does not backtrack the problem in that direction, but still has a place for the overall IDea that he had in mind...
Missing the point yet again, Gary? All IDC is a bait-and-switch, where whatever actual examples can be found, they correspond to "ordinary design", but the argument comes around eventually to asking the reader to accept an inference to "rarefied design" as if it were just the same thing. The point isn't that this is obviously a part of Dembski's argumentation, but also that your posts here do that, too. That's why the linked article is relevant. "Rarefied design" advocacy isn't a failing unique to Dembski.
I already understand that what is found elsewhere does not amount to acceptable scientific theory. I am on that point more or less agreeing with you. I'm sure ones who only got into trouble because of it, have no problem at all agreeing, that it was just enough information to get into unexpected trouble with. But that is the past, that I can see you need to put behind real bad too.
There has been such a myriad of ideas that have been thrown around over the years, none even want to have to first memorize a 1000 phrase vocabulary list then over the next ten years take each opinionated argument one by one in detail. We could easily spend months just getting you to at most half-qualify your "ordinary design" concept well enough to be possible to use in theory.
I make sure not to waste the time of scientists and educators who only need to know how the model works.
Regardless of what you claim is lacking from my replies, you have not addressed anything to be concerned about it the theory that is supposed to be under discussion in this thread.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.