I will take your word on this but I would be charitable with Bill and say it is work in progress. Be careful not to try and force an alternative approach into your paradigm.
The method of ID is detecting design in nature. We can infer design by the purposeful arrangement of parts. DNA is and example as it is a purposeful arrangements of nucleotides.
There is a difference between assumption and inference. This Paley’s argument from years ago. If I see a rock on the ground I will not necessarily infer design. If I see a watch with its complex arrangements of well matched parts that can keep time I will infer design.
Design in not assumed it is inferred from the observation. The 1.0 prior is a result of no alternative explanation.
They have created a narrative which conforms to their prior beliefs, like a sermon or apologetic. It provides comfort against modern narratives which leave little room for expression of faith - at least not in the role that religion used to play in society. It’s not a lie to have faith, but claims that science might support faith in this way (Intelligent Design) are ultimately a form of self-deception.
I try to keep in mind the great many people of faith who see no need to shore up their beliefs with bad science. This sort of honesty seems to work just fine for most.
One of the following strings is designed, the rest are random. Using whatever methods of ID you prefer, tell me which one it is, the purpose of the arrangement, and how you were able to tell.
Then you aren’t detecting design, you’re detecting function and inferring design. Which is just your opinion, and no one cares about opinions without evidence.
BTW, it was the second one. Now that you know which one it is, can you tell the purpose? I bet you can’t…
Which, of course, smuggles in the conclusion, since nothing not caused by a conscious choice can have a “purpose.”
Of course, this particular form of smuggling has the disadvantage of being screamingly obvious. It’s like trying to cross the border with 100 kilos of cocaine strapped to the roof of your car, leaking powder behind, with “COCAINE” written in large block letters on the package.
I wouldn’t, but then I have used statistics for an entire career. In addition to bad math, Dembski’s understanding of biology is rudimentary at best. If he thinks he has something of significance to contribute, he would have tried harder on the biology side.
But then, he’s done enough to fool you into thinking he’s made a significant contribution, right?
Luckily, we have metrics for that. Based on those, Dembski has made no significant contribution.
Your use of the verb “is” here is dishonest, Bill. Detection of anything requires a method. The detection is a result, not a method.
And with facts, but you repeatedly present assumptions as facts. Why is that?
No, the assumption is falsely presented as the observation. This is why you repeatedly fabricate evidence.
You’re just reinforcing the observation that you are utterly clueless.
Indeed. The lack of such honesty, as displayed by Bill et al., to me strongly suggests lack of faith.
In The Design of Life, he attributes the observed homology between reptilian jaw bones and mammalian ear ossicles – a profoundly well-evidenced homology which can be seen in embryonic development, among other things --, to a mere “bone count.” Rudimentary at best, then, with emphasis on at best.
My eyesight in these matters is much, much better than anyone in the ID vanguard. I can assure you that there is no such thing in biology as “purposefully-arranged parts”.
Purpose in this context is that you can identify a reason for the function. If you cannot find a reason for a heart, hand, eye etc then your eye sight is not as good as you may think
Oh, I can surmise reasons. But you are going to have to face the fact that I may be the elusive designer so many of us are talking about. Are you willing to go there?
Purposefully placed there with conscious intent and foresight.
with
Performing a function or activity that aids life, survival, and reproduction.
Limbs and organs perform functions that aid life, survival and reproduction. That is enough of a reason for their evolutionary origin and continued existence. It does not mean nor does it even weakly imply that they had to be intentionally designed and put in place by someone.
And to further clarify for the sake of anyone other than Bill who might still be confused on the subject:
Those structures did not arise because they could perform those functions. They arose by accident, and have remained as part of the organism’s genome by virtue of the fact that they could perform a function or, at least, were not fatal to the organism. As an additional result, their function could be further refined, improved or even changed by more accidents.
This is what has fooled Bill and those of his ilk into thinking there was some designer involved in all this.
This thread is beginning to wander from the original topic into the well worn grooves of ID arguments, so perhaps it is time to bring comments to a close?
I am tempted to follow up with a post on the basics of Bayesian Inference, since it has practical application in these discussions.
I’m sure we could reach 1000 posts without anyone providing an example of a DI member showing integrity, just like we did without anyone providing an ID hypothesis.
Meanwhile, we have lots of examples of DI members showing disintegrity, and all the ID supporters frantically impersonating Mizaru…
