Re: [asa] Ignorance in all around I see...

From: William Hamilton <>
Date: Mon Jul 07 2008 - 17:48:38 EDT

On 7/7/08, David Campbell <> wrote:
> > one can concede to the DI ID proponents that their form of
> > ID is not a science stopper.
> [snip]

In reality, a scientific test for design must be based on comparison
> of a large number of known designed and undesigned items, coupled with
> evidence about the likely intentions of a designer. I don't see
> Dawkins or Dembski doing this.

And this raises several questions:
1. How do you decide that an object is not designed? Since God is sovereign
over everything, is not everything in some sense a part of God's design?
2. We're pretty good at identifying the works of human designers, but does
that give us any real confidence that we can identify the works of a
nonhuman designer?

And finally, Is Bill Dembski's explanatory filter anything more than
handwaving to get around the problem that an event whose probability is
identically zero can still occur?
I have read a bit less than half of The Design Inference (and I'll read the
rest when I get back to Austin) but the material on complexity seems like so
much handwaving to me.

William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
Member American Scientific Affiliation
Rochester, MI/Austin, TX
248 821 8156
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 7 17:49:07 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 07 2008 - 17:49:07 EDT