Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
59 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle (5 members, 54 visitors)
Newest Member: Johnny
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 885,086 Year: 2,732/14,102 Month: 397/703 Week: 50/168 Day: 5/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Year In Intelligent Design
Taq
Member
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 6 of 50 (826384)
12-29-2017 2:45 PM


Rosa Parks They Are Not
For a long time now we have been told by ID/creationists how they have been persecuted and prevented from publishing their research in scientific journals.

Now they have a journal that will publish damn near anything they want to, and millions of dollars at the Discovery Institute to fund research. What do we get? Bupkus.

On the best of days, all they are capable of doing is falsely criticizing the scientific work done by others.


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-26-2018 4:57 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 22 of 50 (827710)
01-30-2018 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by A Certain Cyborg
01-28-2018 4:21 AM


Re: Rosa Parks They Are Not
A Certain Cyborg writes:

I haven't read The Design Inference, but I have printed out several pages of his seminal thesis (upon which the book and his subsequent writing about Complex, Specified Information is based) for reference. When I first started reading the arguments from the Intelligent Design community I was immediately interested in their claim (based on Dembskis claim) that it is being used in Forensic Science and Archaeology.
It was a short order for me to cook up an argument probing my interlocutors as to exactly how the Design Inference would differentiate between four scenarios. Needless to say, they merely told me I should read the Design Inference (a seeming tacit admission that they haven't read it, or at least haven't understood it).
Taking their bait, that's how I came to accessing Dembskis thesis (my library didn't have a copy of The Design Inference, but did have a copy of The Design Revolution which I was unimpressed by, to say the least). I've tried my best to comprehend it, but as I mentioned even Dembskis academic peers have criticized his writing for being misleading or hard to comprehend (and not because it's a difficult topic).
Suffice it to say, those actually involved in Forensics and Archaeology aren't impressed. See: Chapter 8, written by Gary S. Hurd in 'Why Intelligent Design Fails'.

From my surface understanding of the Design Inference, it is nothing more than a Designer of the Gaps argument backed by bad math. His main thesis seems to be "it is too improbable, therefore magic". Of course, internally his whole thesis hinges on getting the probabilities right, and from what I have seen he uses the Sharpshooter fallacy where probabilities are calculated after an event has occurred (which is the wrong way to do it).

In a nutshell, if we look at evolutionary pathways down to the fine grained level of individual mutations then every evolutionary pathway is extremely improbable. The problem for Dembski's thesis is that the mere fact of the arrow of time guarantees that a highly improbable evolutionary pathway will occur due to the simple fact that mutations occur in large populations of organisms. It is equivalent to a sharpshooter painting the bullseye over his bullet hole.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by A Certain Cyborg, posted 01-28-2018 4:21 AM A Certain Cyborg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2018 1:55 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 23 of 50 (827712)
01-30-2018 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
01-29-2018 2:14 AM


Re: Rosa Parks They Are Not
PaulK writes:

If you look at Mt Rushmore (a favourite ID example) you don’t go “I can’t think of a natural explanation, it must be designed” - but you might well go “humans carved that to honour famous people”

If an archaeologists is digging in the ground and finds a potshard and an earthworm, which one does he take back to the museum as evidence of an intelligence? The potshard. If Dembski wants to claim that archaeologists are using the Design Inference, then he needs to explain why this is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2018 2:14 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2018 5:26 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8482
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 26 of 50 (827721)
01-30-2018 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
01-30-2018 1:55 PM


Re: Rosa Parks They Are Not
PaulK writes:

Yes, that is a potential flaw of the method but I haven’t seen Dembski do a good enough job of applying his method for that to be a real issue in practice. If Dembski ever gets to calculating the probabilities of evolutionary paths (and he may have, I haven’t looked at his work in the last few years) that might be an issue. But I haven’t seen him even try it, even when he should.

Then it ends up being a moot point. It would seem that the Explanator Filter is incapable of explaining biology, the very thing that ID is focused on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2018 1:55 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2018 12:14 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021