Dembski and Swamidass: What is the Status of the Explanatory Filter?

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@pnelson

Before design can be justifiably inferred, Josh argues, one must eliminate everything in (4), (5) and (6), below:

@swamidass

4. Natural processes (known and unknown)
5. Natural processes (known and unknown) + Chance
6. Known natural processes + Chance

Thought experiment.

Question: what is the best explanation for the cause of this text? – i.e., the sentences you are reading right now.

Hypothesis: there exists an unknown natural cause, somewhere in (4), (5) and (6), other than the agent “Paul Nelson,” which produces English text about the epistemology of design inferences.

Dilemma: we cannot infer that the agent “Paul Nelson” wrote this text until we refute that unknown natural cause.

Therefore, the inference “Paul Nelson wrote this message” is invalid.

Hm. Something seems amiss.

Nothing’s amiss. We cannot infer that “Paul Nelson” wrote this text without refuting the natural cause that some-one unknown is using your account.