Stonehenge and ID

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:
start with an event- E:

​

Does E have a High Probability of occurring?
if yes it is attributed to regularity.
If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring?
if Yes we can attribute it to chance.
If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If Yes we attribute it to Design.
if No we attribute it to chance.

​

​

John Paul:
There is no known naturally originating object that exhibits CSI. There is plenty of literature out there that can be read that tells you how ID is inferred. Dembski's filter is a start.

​

---

First, I admit I haven't even heard of Demski let alone read anything
he's written ... however ...The filter as stated is a series of value judgements on the
probablity of something having occurred.If we take abiogenesis as an example, how to attribute the probablity
of it occurring, and hence follow through the filter.On the original topic of this thread, I'd like to say that the
easiest way to detect design is to find the designer. IF we
can find some positive, objective tests for design, then we
do not need to know who the designer is.A large number of assertions abound as I've mentioned in the
ID debate) that there are no naturally ocurring complex systems.Anything quoted as naturally occurring complexity is said to be
not natural at all but the work of the IDer.Therefore, providing an example of naturally occurring complexity
is futile (it's one side beleives iit is the other beleives it isn't
and doesn't progress the debate).We need a set of objective criteria for designed systems.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:
start with an event- E
Does E have a High Probability of occurring?
if yes it is attributed to regularity.
If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring?
if Yes we can attribute it to chance.
If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If Yes we attribute it to Design.
if No we attribute it to chance.

---

It seems to me that Demski's filter (apart from being based upon
value judgements) is about differentiating between design and
chance ... in the context of this forum, the only occurance
that could be attributable to chance is the original formation
of the chemicals on which life are based.Maybe that's all we're talking about here.You can't use this to infer design in a frog (I like frogs BTW)
because a frog is NOT formed by chance. It comes from pre-existing
frogs, and frog ancestors.Once life took hold, chance is removed (except in the sense of
chance changes to the environment sparking natural selection).

"In general, then, evolutionary
algorithms generate not true complexity but only the appearance of
complexity. And since they cannot generate complexity, they cannot generate specified complexity either.""Does nature
exhibit actual specified complexity? The jury is still out."{Dembski, William A. :: http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/ae/dembski_wa/19990913_explaining_csi.html)}If it is possible to generate something which appears to be
complex but is not ... why can this NOT be the case for
living organisms (or more pointedly for DNA) ?I would regard it as presumptous to use Dembski's filter in this
debate, when he himself clearly does not believe that the filter
CAN point to ID in the origins of life.