Sorry to butt in... but I just read a
post of Brad's, and I think he brought up a good point which (I think) is applicable here.
holmes writes:
ID's argument is that if it can be shown that no natural (meaning undirected) process could possibly have generated a biological entity, then the only other option is that it was created via a directed process.
They then attempt to prove that it is impossible for certain biological entities to have been produced by undirected mechanisms. They claim to have done this through mathematical/statistical modelling which can show a practical impossibility.
Without investigating the nature of the designer, I don't think that they can distinguish between an unknown physical process that is CI (computationally irreducable) vs. one that is designed by an intelligent designer. Both will appear as "a practical impossibility" (something CI cannot be reduced to it's (possibly simple) algorithmic generation mechanism).
If that's the case, and I think it is, then without addressing the nature of the designer, then this line of evidence can give you a naturalistic, algorithmic "designer." And, given the title of the hypothesis ("intelligent design"), that doesn't fit the assumptions of the designer that they're looking for.
To summarize, I think the line of evidence you mentioned is NOT enough to establish an intelligent designer. Either additional evidence needs to be found (and Brad seems to have some ideas what that might be), or they need to be able to establish some properties of the designer. Otherwise their hypothesis is not unique, and the same result can be explained both by an "unknown intelligent designer" and an "unknown CI algorithmic generation procedure."
This message has been edited by Ben, Tuesday, 2005/05/10 06:58 PM
™ Version 4.2
