8202Re: Dembski's reply to WSJ article `flaws in intelligent design'
- Feb 16, 2004--- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen E. Jones"
"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
"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.
- << Previous post in topic