Home » Intelligent Design » www.genetic-id.com, an instance design detection?

www.genetic-id.com, an instance design detection?

Many people do not understand what the Explanatory Filter represents, it represent “ordinary practice” of detecting design.

Explanatory Filter from the book Design Inference

The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design. In particular, the filter describes

how copyright and patent offices identify theft of intellectual property

how insurance companies prevent themselves from getting ripped off

how detectives employ circumstantial evidence to incriminate a guilty party

how forensic scientists are able reliably to place individuals at the scene of a crime

how skeptics debunk the claims of parapsychologists

how scientists identify cases of data falsification

how NASA’s SETI program seeks to identify the presence of extra- terrestrial life, and

how statisticians and computer scientists distinguish random from non-random strings of digits.

Entire industries would be dead in the water without the Explanatory Filter. Much is riding on it. Using the filter, our courts have sent people to the electric chair. Let us now see why the filter works.

With this in mind, I claim the work of the company genetic-ID is an instance of the Explanatory Filter.

www.genetic-id.com

Genetic ID can reliably detect ALL commercialized genetically modified organisms. GMO [gentically modified organisms] testing is used to detect and quantify the presence of GMOs.

Some time ago at ARN, the ID critics were so certain that the work of the Genetic-ID corporation was not an instance of the Explanatory Filter. It turned out 90% of the critics hadn’t even read Bill Dembski’s writings but rather they only read repackaged Shallit and Elsberry and Perakh to “learn” what ID was.

They could not accept the work of Gentic-ID was a valid instance of the Explanatory Filter.

Salvador

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

8 Responses to www.genetic-id.com, an instance design detection?

  1. Sal, I think you misunderstood Genetic ID’s method of detecting GMOs. They appear to be using DNA fingerprinting to compare *known* GMO fingerprints to sample foods to determine if they contain any GMOs. There’s no design detection going on here.

  2. What they’re doing is taking known DNA sequences that have been engineered into crops, and looking for them. It’s the same sort of thing they do in a paternity test. If a scientist secretely modified a plant, and brought it in for testing, they wouldn’t find it, because they don’t know the signature to look for. It’s the same technology used to do a paternity test, they need some of the father’s DNA to compare with. They aren’t looking at this DNA and saying, “This is designed,” or “This isn’t designed.” They’re saying that it either has or doesn’t have the DNA sequences they’re looking for, end of story.

    There is no stage at which they ask, “Can a law explain this?”

    There is no stage at which they ask, “Can chance explain this?”

    There is no stage at which they ask, “Can design explain this?”

    I can’t see how this is using the explanatory filter when it uses none of the three stages.

  3. DaveScot wrote:

    Sal, I think you misunderstood Genetic ID’s method of detecting GMOs. They appear to be using DNA fingerprinting to compare *known* GMO fingerprints to sample foods to determine if they contain any GMOs. There’s no design detection going on here.

    Comparing the known GMO fingerprint (ie an independent specification) to a test sample is a design detection method, at least in the broadest sense of design.

    Anyway, how long before their directors get an email from a ‘concerned citizen’ warning them that the work of their company is being used for propoganda purposes by ‘creationists’, because it was mentioned on this blog…

  4. Oops – looks like the quotes didn’t work…

    [I repaired it, Sal]

  5. 5

    antg wrote:
    “Comparing the known GMO fingerprint (ie an independent specification) to a test sample is a design detection method, at least in the broadest sense of design.”

    The Genetic-ID folks are detecting (partially) designed organisms. The reason they are successful is that they know ahead of time that certain organisms are genetically modified, and they also know the unique genetic fingerprints associated with these known GMOs.

    It is a different problem altogether to identify a human-engineered GM organism without prior knowledge of its unique genetic fingerprint.

    It is more difficult still to identify a designed organism with no prior knowledge of the designer. This last and most difficult problem is the one faced by ID proponents.

    Actually the most difficult problem is trying to explain how organisms that appear to be designed are in fact not designed. -ds

    Contrary to Salvador’s hopes, the fact that the first problem has been solved by the folks at Genetic-ID does not make the third problem any easier.

  6. DaveScot,

    Well, that’s the reason I hope we can discuss this amongst ourselves here. The salient DNA in a GMO is a man-made object.

    If the explanatory filter is capable of detecting man-made objects (such as in the case of patent or copyright infringement), then Genetic-ID’s DNA fingerprinting is a method of design detection.

    Salvador

  7. antg wrote:

    Comparing the known GMO fingerprint (ie an independent specification) to a test sample is a design detection method,

    ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! Think of it as comparable to detecting a copyright infringement. It is the same method of design detection.

  8. This is not remotely comparable to detecting design in nature. It’s comparable to detecting who wrote this comment. Sorry Sal. I’m closing the comments on this thread.