From: <>
Date: Thu May 17 2007 - 12:54:45 EDT

Pim wrote:

> I'd love to hear these so called 'scientific claims' of ID?

I think in Dembski's original book (The Design Inference),
he gives some examples such as Nicholas Caputo who probably
rigged the votes, some varieties of forensic science such
as detecting plagiarism, and cryptography or SETI problems.

I think the main difference between these examples and
the religious one is that you can estimate the
odds with some level of certainty in the above examples.

Gambling casinos can generally guess when someone is
cheating because they know the odds of the game, and
they would not be in business if they didn't know how
to make a profit. In the same way, the odds of selecting
the same party for the top position in the ballot 40 out
of 41 times in a "random" selection has estimable odds.
Coming up with 3 pages of identical text has odds that
can be estimated. Intercepted ET communications are
less clear, but given language has some universal features
and the communicators are not using code, these also have
estimable odds.

The main reason ID is useless for its religious purpose is
because God is not an ET (some unspecified complex organism
of an advanced civilization). We would find evidence of
the ET, evidence for God need not be so because it depends
of God what he shows.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 17 12:55:45 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 17 2007 - 12:55:45 EDT