Re: Fwd: Identity of the ID designer

Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 12:18:13 EST

  • Next message: Jan de Koning: "Re: Historical evidence for Jesus"

    John Burgeson wrote:

    > Once again I ask if we can talk about the science, and not about either the
    > theology or the motivations of Dembski, Johnson, et. al. I am sure that to
    > many those subjects are interesting; they are not interesting to me.

    Basically, "The Design Inference" is presented in a
    way that does not emphasize any applications to ID.
    The current exchanges about "side information" are
    what he calls "specified".

    The major problem with the method is finding some
    objective way to estimate the probability of a
    certain series of events. If you know their probability, then
    estimating whether there is
    design is probably fairly good.

    For subject matters other than evolution, I
    think there may be places where it could be useful.
    One of them might be in identifying possible fraud.
    Of course SETI is another application. In that
    respect, the useful repetoire that ID _could_ develop
    would also potentially lead to advances in
    information science.

    I do not consider the methods useless, but I don't
    think they are much help in the evolution/creation
    debate or the evidence of God sorts of arguments
    that they have been sold on. Fortunately (or
    unfortunately), God seems to require us to have
    faith, and "facts" just don't require very much faith.

    by Grace we proceed,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 11:28:58 EST