They are detecting design through mathematical model, you can only argue whether they are using right mathematical model or not. But they never say something has low probability therefore desined. It is misinterpetation of these works.
Monta ̃nez GD (2018) A Unified Model of Complex Specified Information. BIO-Complexity 2018 (4):
Dembski WA (1998) The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge UniversityPress.
LOL! This are Dembski’s own words from Design Inference vs. Design Hypothesis
" The design inference, as I developed it, looks to a marker of design, what I call specified complexity or specified improbability , and from there reasons to a designing intelligence as responsible for this marker."
It’s too improbable therefore Design. Just what I said. You have no idea what you’re even arguing for.
specified complexity is not about It is too improbable therefore Design. Dembski never argued that improbability is a sufficient marker for designing intelligence, Contrary, he argued it is not sufficient, there have to be another criteria
LOL! I just provided you with Dembski describing specified complexity as specified improbability and saying it leads to concluding a designing intelligence.
" The design inference, as I developed it, looks to a marker of design, what I call specified complexity or specified improbability , and from there reasons to a designing intelligence as responsible for this marker."
Why do you think Dembski would misrepresent his own work?
he does not, it is you who does not undersdand what means ‘‘improbability’’ and ‘‘specified complexity’’, these are comlete opposite
Please explain what improbability means on your planet.
Complexity is a measure of improbability. Then that improbable event also has to be “specified”.
Resurrection from the dead after a public criminal execution in which the prisoner is stabbed through the heart, with coagulated blood and serum tumbling out as confirmation of death cannot be attributable to random processes.
if flip a coin 150 times, you will get the occurrences of heads and tails in order, in a random patern. That pattern whatever comes as outcome will be improbable event. But that does not follow design.
but if you specifie the outcome and then flip a coin 150 times and now the outcome must match the specified outcome, it can only happen with designing intelligence․
Note. this sort of reasing make sense if you already eliminated that there are no phisical neccesity for a coin to have certain outcome.
first case is the one you are fighting against, i agree with that. NO one said that improbability is marker for design, it has been said specified complexity, which is not pure improbability,
That’s a really long way to say something that took me two sentences to say
Though we know this is flawed and is not a reliable way to detect design
We know life started on earth by some means. What we don’t know is the cause. Can we assign a probability to a specific cause?
Well, we can. But we would be guessing.
I think we can assign a probability of greater then 99% that it was not due to random events.
We don’t even know which proteins, if any, are required for abiogenesis. Therefore, those calculations don’t have much relevance.
You need to understand the difference between events that haven’t happened and events that have happened.
As soon as you talk about the probability of mutations producing function then you are necessarily talking about all possible functions, including the unobserved/unknown possibilities.
That’s the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You are drawing a bulls eye around the bullet hole.
Good, saying this you made Evolutionary theory untestable, unfalsifiable. Since there are always unobserved/unknown possibilities
Evolution is both testable and falsifiable. It can be tested by taking the data from the fossil and genetic records and making a best fit phylogenetic tree for each. Compare the two phylogenies. If there is strong agreement the theory is supported. If there is wild discordance the current theory is falsified.
You seem to be one more creationist who doesn’t understand the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified.
Events are treated as if they have already occurred. Please read the wikipedia article.