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

From: David Campbell <>
Date: Tue Jul 08 2008 - 19:54:50 EDT

>> 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?

Yes-both are serious problems for any claims for ID or UIUD
(Unintelligent Undesign, the version of ID practiced by "new atheists"
as well as plenty of old ones). Likewise, even if there were
multiverses, we have no way to measure their properties and determine
what's normative and what's exceptional.

> 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?

There's also a component of painting the bull's eye around the arrow.
ID design definitions appear to be attempts to identify complex
biochemical systems as designed, not attempts to characterize actual
known design (however it is defined).

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 8 19:55:06 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 08 2008 - 19:55:06 EDT