…that Intelligent Design isn’t science.
In another thread there’s a discussion about specified complexity. I think the problem with specification is it’s a subjective measure but it shouldn’t be hard to understand. Most people intuitively recognize it and draw conclusions from it. (emphasis mine)
I’ll stick with that. Now, who would accept « conclusions » based on « subjective measures » (WTF could be a subjective measure ?) as the basis of a scientific discussion? Except DaveScot only one person come in my mind, Jean Staune 😉
Let’s go further with DaveScot:
Start with a standard deck of 52 playing cards. You are told that it has been shuffled thoroughly. Upon examination you find that the deck is perfectly ordered by suit and rank. Will you still believe it was shuffled? Probably not.(emphasis mine)
Well, if I trust the person that said so, yes, I will believe that it was shuffled. It would be even better if I shuffle it by myself, one I can certainly trust :-). Now, if it’s Dembski who said so, no I will not trust him; neither DaveScot, by the way.
The problem with this is that specification is subjective. It is not a product of nature but rather a product of mind. We can’t, or at least I believe we can’t, come up with an objective formula that distinguishes specification from non-specification. But that doesn’t negate the fact that specification is tangible and can be practically employed to discriminate between chance and design as we can see with the deck of cards example above.
Certainly the belief that « there is specification is subjective », and that characterize clearly Intelligent Design as non scientific.
If Dembski shuffle the cards and DaveScot « upon examination find that the deck is perfectly ordered by suit and rank » and he doesn’t believe that it was shuffled, there would be some problems between the two fellows. But, whatever DaveScot believes, or not, doesn’t weight if one should decide if Dembski really shuffled or not the cards. Neither « specification is tangible » if Dembski really shuffled the cards and believing so based on intuition would place DaveScot in the classic situation of IDiots detecting specification in other systems.
Now let us look at an example of specified complexity that exists in all living things. [Now, DaveScot, that should be the conclusion, not the a priori 🙂] The video depicts the purpose and action of an enzyme called a topoisomerase. The enzyme is far more complex than a deck of cards. It is a sequence of hundreds of amino acids in a folded chain. Any link in the chain can be any one of 20 different amino acids. The order determines how it will fold and what biological activity (if any) it will possess. [yeah! and this have nothing to do with shuffling the cards, the enzymeevolved, that means several shufflings and a lot of selection] Does it have specification? You must be the judge of that.
Well, no it hasn’t.