Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8202Re: Dembski's reply to WSJ article `flaws in intelligent design'

Expand Messages
  • pimvanmeurs
    Feb 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen E. Jones"
      <sejones@i...> wrote:
      Quoting Dembski:
      "Of course there's no strict logical impossibility for a microsyringe
      being an evolutionary precursor to the bacterial flagellum. But what
      exactly had to happen to that microsyringe to transform it into a

      Let's stop here and realize that Dembski's design inference is a
      logic inference based on the impossibility of regularity and chance.
      While Dembski is correct that we may not have all the details
      necessary to describe the Darwinian pathway in all details, it
      should also be clear that any design inference based on the
      flagellum will fail when a logical possibility has to be

      William Dembski all but seems to have conceded that the design
      inference may be irrelevant to detecting (novel) design in nature.
      Which is the conclusion reached by Del Ratzsch in the appendix of
      his latest book.

      Dembski may object to the details of the pathways and we may thus
      have to admit that we don't know all the details but the logical
      possibility admitted to here also has undermined any hope for a
      design inference.


      "And is it reasonable to think that those steps could be
      taken apart from design?"

      Without further data one has to infer 'we don't know'. Certainly any
      design inference has to be rejected as long as a logical possibility
      is admitted. Remember once again that the design inference is a
      logical argument. In addition, even when admitting design, it would
      seem self evident that a natural designer like selection and
      variation could not be eliminated. Science is progressing in its
      understanding of the flagellum and some viable pathways have been
      provided. While one can always object to the scale of the steps,
      such objections do little to support any design inference.
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic