Revelation 4:11
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info
Posted on 05/03/2006 5:23:15 AM PDT by AdamsMark
I understand that there are a lot of dedicated and talented players in the lineup for ID. Still though, I know there are even more who are sitting on the bench, as it were. That's one of the reasons, I programmed the ID Scope. It's not unlike what SETI has done, (though the budget here is a little, ahem...smaller than SETI's.) They have an internet program called "SETI@home" that allows your computer to help in "the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence by analyzing data specially captured by the world's largest radio telescope." This has had the effect of getting thousands and thousands of people to join SETI. One of the goals I hope to achieve is to get some people to think about and test ID's claims, who wouldn't otherwise get involved. What I mean by "test ID's claims" is, I want people to try to find examples which would falsify Dembski's filter. If there are "legitimate" false positives coming through the filter, the ID Scope could be the vehicle to demonstrate this. Conversely, it could also help to demonstrate that no known false positives exist at this time. Legitimacy can only be accomplished by an example which passes through all of the nodes of the filter. I've seen ridiculous, extrapolated examples claimed as false positives which would not even pass through the first node of the filter. I must emphasize, here we are dealing with examples which pass the test of all three nodes.
(Excerpt) Read more at intelligentdesign.org ...
S pecified C complexity O rigin P robability E valuator
The ID Scope is "a computer implementation of Dembski's filter". The new article has a bunch of demonstrations on its use and ends up using it on an example of genome convergence.
check back to see how list evolves.
The greatest challange to the Intelligent Design theory is to explain why, if a greater intelligence has designed mankind, how do we account for Teddy Kennedy?
That website's creator puts an obviously-designed sand-sculpture in opposition to a putatively undesigned sandstone formation. But once one grants the possibility of an unspecified designer, I don't think that there's any way one can attribute randomness or lack of design to the sandstone formation, or to anything else. There is no counterexample that couldn't be the work of an omnipotent and hyper-involved designer. Sand-sculpting winds, though appearing random to us, might in fact be as directed as an artist's brush.
Back to biology: Let's say in twenty years we can successfully design an microorganism. (Supposedly this has been done already, using other species' spare parts.) We hold up an obviously-artifical organism to an allegedly undesigned one. What's the difference between the two?
Considering both organisms must follow basic laws of chemistry and biology in order to thrive, I don't think any meaningful difference can be specified.
The Christians among the ID movement want to focus on specific examples of order to leave some sort of space for God when they should be concentrating on the overall nature of that order itself. Ontology and metaphysics don't have the cultural cachet of natural science, but they really are superior modes of inquiry for topics such as these.
Revelation 4:11
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info
Hey, look at that: an ID thread that's over twelve hours old and not one attempt to link IDers and Creationists with liberals, Democrats, Rael, Scientology, Middle Ages superstition, shamanism, Stalinism, and all things anti-science. Good ping, wall!
** crickets **
nice and peaceful
a calm thread...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.