Home » Intelligent Design » A Darwinist Successfully Employs Design Detection!

A Darwinist Successfully Employs Design Detection!

In the thread I deleted “A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists” one of the commenters noted that the URL linking to the offensive article had undergone a point mutation. One letter in it changed that made the link go somewhere else. He implied that this didn’t happen at random and that someone purposely changed it.

Guilty as charged. I changed that one letter – a k to an h to make it difficult to see at a casual glance. But let’s look at how my design was detected.

We all know that bits can flip at random in computer data from various causes just like they can flip at random in DNA from various causes. This wasn’t a complex mutation. A single letter changed. Yet the Darwinist STILL made a design inference. That’s the power of specification. The mutation that occured was specified in that it served a purpose. In this case it served to make the offensive article inaccessable from Uncommon Descent. Even with a very small level of complexity to work with the commenter successfully employed the concept of CSI – complex specified information – and reached a correct design inference.

ID theory works! Even for Darwinists who hypocritically employ it without admitting it. :lol:

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

8 Responses to A Darwinist Successfully Employs Design Detection!

  1. The rebuttal will be something along the line of “human intervention is known through other means” as per Elsberry/Shallit’s third challenge to Dembski at http://www.talkreason.org/arti.....embski.pdf — and therefore wouldn’t relate to the more general case of situation lacking obvious causal history.

  2. Not necessarily, leo – the new URL might have taken us to DaveScot’s secret list of Expletives For the Complete Marine. I don’t know about you, but I would class that as a gain in information. :-)

  3. The rebuttal will be something along the line of “human intervention is known through other means”

    The counter rebuttal will be, “Why then couldn’t it have been a monkey hammering on a keyboard?”.

    Dave… Do you have any pet monkeys?

  4. “human intervention is known through other means”

    If you Google “creationists lack of imagination” or “intelligent design lack of imagination” you will see that this is a favorite attack by Darwinists. Yet their own imaginations begin to lack when they start leading them someplace they don’t want to go.

  5. 5

    I just finished “The Design Inference” a few weeks ago and I’m still digesting the bulk of it.

    I registered on this site about a week ago but this is my first post.

    Do you mean that changing a letter and having somebody notice the change constitutes a rejection of a random hypothesis?

    Is that an appropriate use of the explanitory filter?

  6. 6

    Very clever, Dave.

  7. Dave,

    These are the same people who disparage the EF yet it is that EF which one would use if it is the design inference you are trying to refute.

  8. p.noyola

    The rebuttal will be something along the line of “human intervention is known through other means” as per Elsberry/Shallit’s third challenge to Dembski at http://www.talkreason.org/arti.....embski.pdf — and therefore wouldn’t relate to the more general case of situation lacking obvious causal history.

    And my rebuttal would be that this mutation exhibited almost no complexity while CSI by Dembski’s definition would have required that the mutation have only 1 chance in 10^150 of happening by accident. The bar is set far higher for CSI when the causal agency is unknown.

Leave a Reply