Jakob Wolf
Member
Member # 166
|
posted 20. November 2003 06:47
Dembski claims that we are able to detect design by means of the complexity-specification criterion. I think he is right about that, but it seems to me there is a problem. How do you recognize the "suitable pattern" that finaly excludes chance?
I would suggest that this recognition is based on an intutive analogy. I here use the concept "analogy" in a broad sense. In an object we recognize a pattern, that we know from another object. For example, we know the pattern "means well adapted to ends" from a watch, and then we reconize this pattern in a biological system. The problem is how do we account for this recognition? I think the only way to account for it is to say that it is an intuitive analogy.
The explanatory filter does not account for the reconition of the "suitable pattern". It presupposes it. And as the recontion of a suitable pattern is crucial to the filter it is a very important presupposition.
There is a very big difference in identifying complexity and identifying specification. Complexity is a form of probality. It can be quantified. Identification of specification is not based on "objective quantification". What is it based on? I think: intuitive analogy.
This frustrates many who thinks the filter is an objective quantifiable way of detecting design.
I think what we must say is: The explanatory filter works, but it presupposes intuitive analogical recognition. Actually specication is not the last step, but the first. First, in the sense of primary, we recognise the resemblance of a biological system and a man-made artifact, and then, secondary, we try to strengthen the analogy by testing if we can exclude natural law and chance.
IP: Logged
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic