ID proponents still confused
On ARN, Salvador presents an excellent case for the unfamiliarity of ID proponents with the approached chosen by ID:
Brayton then tries to use pin "argument from ignorance" as the basis of ID, and that is not true. Barrow and Tipler are a classic examples people who does not use that arguement to support ID. He paraodies ID by saying insinuating IDists will infer ID as soon as scientist admit they don't know something about a certain phenomenon. Not true. Witness Dean Kenyon
Let's quickly discuss the design inference.
- Can the event be explained by chance?
- If NO, Can the event be explained by regularity?
- If NO, Is the event specified?
- If YES, then design is inferred
Using the same approach as chosen by ID proponents to claim design in biology, Brayton has shown how the earthquake and the following Tsunami would lead to a design inference due to much of the same appeal to ignorance as chosen by ID proponents in biology.
What is interesting is that in his reply, Salvador seems to distantiate himself from the traditional ID proponents such as Dembski or Behe. Not surprisingly since their methods to infer design are based on an "appeal to ignorance".
Salvador then further confuses the issues when he stated
The reason the analogy does not apply is that what is of interest in biological phenomenon are the information architectures, the software, the designs (conceptual entities). The mystery in biology is how physical processes (hardware) created informatic relationiships (software). With the tsunami's its trying to explain how hardware affects hardware. The two realms of inquiry are not even in the same category.
Nothing in the design inference makes the distinction between software and hardware. Such ad hoc reasoning does not bode well for ID which seems to have to move its goal posts regularly. Information as defined in the design inference refer simply to low probability under chance scenarios and is often confused with other concepts of information.