Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stremba; PatrickHenry
Thank you for your post and challenge, but I believe it is pretty much the same as PatrickHenry's to which I posted a response at 1984.

If you are looking for more, please let me know!

2,290 posted on 06/02/2005 12:32:31 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2287 | View Replies ]


To: Alamo-Girl

I apologize; this thread is becoming too large for me to keep track of. As far as addressing your post, you give 3 falsifications for the idea of ID. b) and c) I won't consider, at least with regard to the process of mutation and natural selection. I won't mention b) since if we agree that a process of mutation and natural selection occurs, then there must have been an inception to that process, and c) since that involves the definition of intelligence. I am willing to stipulate that all the given properties are properties of intelligence. However, I have a problem with a), namely that it gives a general idea of how to falsify ID, but is vague.

What qualifies as evidence for or against the presence of an algorithm? To better illustrate the problem I have, I'll postulate a simpler question. Given a table with 20 sequentially numbered coins lying on it, it is possible to write down a sequence of heads and tails showing on these coins. Given a particular heads/tails sequence, how would you determine whether that sequence resulted from intelligent design or from just randomly dropping them on the table? (Assume that the coins are randomly dispersed on the table, and not for example aligned in a straight line or some other regular arrangement) Even if the sequence is something like HTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHT, which would give every appearance of being formed via an algorithm, it is not possible without observing the formation of the sequence, to rule out the possibility that the coins just happened to land in this sequence by being randomly dropped on the table. You might argue that it is highly unlikely that this particular sequence would arise just by chance, namely that only in 1 out of 2^20 times would you expect it to form by being randomly dropped. The problem with this argument is that it applies equally well to a more random-seeming sequence such as HTTHHHTHTTTHTHHHTTHT. The probability of that sequence occurring randomly is exactly the same as the probability of the "less random" sequence given earlier forming the same way. In fact, can you tell from my post whether I intentionally and consciously designed the above "more random" sequence or if I derived it by actually tossing a coin 20 times?


2,346 posted on 06/03/2005 10:56:14 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2290 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson