They claim it has a connection. I see no connection.
ASC is supposed to be a way of reliably detecting the input of a designer on arbitrary objects, like DNA sequences. You apply ASC to DNA, see that it computes a high value, and then we are supposed to be certain that an intelligence produced that DNA.
I am unpacking the logical contradiction, the mathematical error, in that position to our friend here. What happened here is that they make an (apparently) accidental equivocation between the true probability of seeing a sequence, and our estimate of the probability of seeing the sequence. The gap between these two things is gigantic, and appears to invalidate their proof that ASC is a way to detect design.
I’ll be impressed if Eric acknowledges the problems here when he sees them. He has been upfront in the past, and we should give him credit again if we repeat history.
If you apply ASC to Human DNA and it computes to a high value, then what? If you apply ASC to a Banana’s DNA and it computes an even higher value, then what? The banana is the pinnacle of design?
Yes I know, but I already agree with you. I’m trying to work with Eric to see if I am right on my understanding of ASC. He has already agreed that we need the true P for ASC to work, and it should be clear that we do not have the true P.
Could you please help clarify something? After reading your post I’m wondering what exactly the ID argument is that you’re responding to here. Do you mind outlining it (or summarising as best you can if you have time constraints). Is it, for example, something like: 1. All information of a certain type (eg. CSI) is intelligently designed. 2. Cells (or DNA) contain information of that same type. Therefore, that information in cells (or DNA) was intelligently designed. So your discussion then is to demonstrate that premise 2 is false?