Explanatory filter - Revision history

DavidB4-bot: /* Dr. William Dembski's Explanatory Filter */HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.amazon.com → https://www.amazon.com (2)

2019-04-09T12:00:23Z

Dr. William Dembski's Explanatory Filter: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.amazon.com → https://www.amazon.com (2)

DavidB4-bot: /* Explanatory Filter Step 1 – Ruling Necessity In or Out */clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T12:16:56Z

Explanatory Filter Step 1 – Ruling Necessity In or Out: clean up & uniformity

DavidB4-bot: /* Explanatory Filter Step 3 – Identifying purpose – Finding a Specification */Spelling/Grammar Check & Cleanup, typos fixed: For example → For example,

2016-06-28T12:45:54Z

Explanatory Filter Step 3 – Identifying purpose – Finding a Specification: Spelling/Grammar Check & Cleanup, typos fixed: For example → For example,

AK: /* “Smoking Guns” of intelligence */ intlink

2016-02-20T18:28:00Z

“Smoking Guns” of intelligence: intlink

Dvergne: Undo revision 1018499 by 0tp (talk)

2012-11-14T08:42:31Z

Undo revision 1018499 by 0tp (talk)

0tp at 08:27, November 14, 2012

2012-11-14T08:27:37Z

Philip J. Rayment: Explanatory Filter moved to Explanatory filter: Conform to MoS

2008-09-23T10:46:30Z

Explanatory Filter moved to Explanatory filter: Conform to MoS

HelpJazz: I don't think this is a proper noun

2008-09-23T00:35:26Z

I don't think this is a proper noun

HelpJazz: wikis aren't sequential

2008-09-23T00:11:47Z

wikis aren't sequential

DanH: category

2008-05-25T19:26:17Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 [[Image:Explanfilter.jpg‎|thumbnail|275px|right|William Dembski's explanatory filter]]
-Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading [[intelligent design]] theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194228951&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194229141&sr=1-7</ref>  Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary.  One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the '''explanatory filter'''.
+Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading [[intelligent design]] theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194228951&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.<ref>https://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194229141&sr=1-7</ref>  Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary.  One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the '''explanatory filter'''.
 Dembski describes his three-part explanatory filter together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.<ref>http://www.arn.org</ref> In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm</ref>

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 <blockquote>
-So in building models we would postulate that the sugar-phosphate backbone was very regular, and the order of bases of necessity very irregular. If the base sequences were always the same, all DNA molecules would be identical and there would not exist the variability that must distinguish one gene from another. <ref>James Watson, '''The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of THE STRUCTURE OF DNA''', (Touchstone 1968) p 52-4.</ref>
+So in building models we would postulate that the sugar-phosphate backbone was very regular, and the order of bases of necessity very irregular. If the base sequences were always the same, all DNA molecules would be identical and there would not exist the variability that must distinguish one gene from another.<ref>James Watson, '''The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of THE STRUCTURE OF DNA''', (Touchstone 1968) p 52-4.</ref>
 </blockquote>

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 =====Explanatory Filter Step 3 – Identifying purpose – Finding a Specification=====
-The third element of Dembski’s filter is to look for an apparent “specification” or purpose.  According to Dembski, the required “specification” is present if it reflects a meaning, structure or function recognizable by a mind that is independent of the significance of the various elements that make up the pattern.  For example the following are two different combinations of six letters of the alphabet:  NEDGIS and DESIGN.  The first, consisting of NEDGIS, reflects a random ordering of the six letters.  It does not reflect any meaning recognizable by a mind that is independent of the significance of each of the symbols that make up the pattern.  However, the second sequence that was ordered for a purpose, “DESIGN,” has a meaning that is independent of the six letters in the sequence.   The “D” in both sequences has the same significance separately, but in one sequence the relative position of the D enables that sequence to “mean,” as a verb “to intend for a definite purpose.”
+The third element of Dembski’s filter is to look for an apparent “specification” or purpose.  According to Dembski, the required “specification” is present if it reflects a meaning, structure or function recognizable by a mind that is independent of the significance of the various elements that make up the pattern.  For example, the following are two different combinations of six letters of the alphabet:  NEDGIS and DESIGN.  The first, consisting of NEDGIS, reflects a random ordering of the six letters.  It does not reflect any meaning recognizable by a mind that is independent of the significance of each of the symbols that make up the pattern.  However, the second sequence that was ordered for a purpose, “DESIGN,” has a meaning that is independent of the six letters in the sequence.   The “D” in both sequences has the same significance separately, but in one sequence the relative position of the D enables that sequence to “mean,” as a verb “to intend for a definite purpose.”
 In the book by Carl Sagan, '''Contact''', a sequence of prime numbers received by a radio telescope from outer space was deemed to be a possible design or message.   In the first step of the filter, the peculiar pattern of beeps and pauses could not be explained by any physical or chemical necessity.  Further, its length of over 1000 symbols ruled out chance in the second part of the analysis. The investigation then turned to a search for a “specification,” a meaning or significance for the sequence of prime numbers that was independent of the symbols them selves.  They were looking for something that would tie the over 1000 stopping points to an integrated whole.  They asked, what meaning lies in a series of prime numbers?  Jody Foster, remarked, “Maybe it is an attention getter!”  Sure enough the message alerted the SETI researchers to a subsequent message containing the blue prints for building an extraordinary machine that ultimately transported Ms Foster into another world.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 DNA consists of coded “messages” that are copied by “messenger RNA.”  The copy is taken to a processing plant called a ribosome, which then “translates” the message into a functional three-dimensional part or genetic word called a protein. Thus, like the recipes in cook books, sequences of nucleotide bases in DNA carry meaning that is independent of the significance of each of the symbols that make the “message.”  They not only look like specifications, they function as specifications.
-=====“Smoking Guns” of intelligence=====
+=====“[[Smoking gun (scientific discourse)|Smoking Guns]]” of intelligence=====
 Albert Harrison, an expert on detecting design from aliens identified what he believed would amount to a smoking gun that would clearly implicate the existence of alien intelligence.  If we could find a symbol sequence that did any of the following we could be certain that it was generated by a mind for a purpose:

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:42, November 14, 2012
Line 24:		Line 24:

	=====Explanatory Filter Step 2 – Ruling Chance In or Out=====		=====Explanatory Filter Step 2 – Ruling Chance In or Out=====
−	[[Image:5712dawkins.jpg\|alt=Richard Dawkins\|right\|thumbnail\|200px\|[[Richard Dawkins]] is a prominent [[atheism\|atheist]] and [[evolution\|evolutionist]]. [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."]]
	Taking the second step of the explanatory filter, if necessity can’t explain a pattern, such as the patterns in DNA, then perhaps chance can explain it. Perhaps random assortments of chemicals came together to produce the first messages of life, for example. After life got started, maybe random mutations in the initial messages would occasionally generate positive functional novelty that would be embraced by the environment. Is 4 billion years enough time for a chance process to turn rocks into intelligent beings that have the capacity to use them for a purpose?		Taking the second step of the explanatory filter, if necessity can’t explain a pattern, such as the patterns in DNA, then perhaps chance can explain it. Perhaps random assortments of chemicals came together to produce the first messages of life, for example. After life got started, maybe random mutations in the initial messages would occasionally generate positive functional novelty that would be embraced by the environment. Is 4 billion years enough time for a chance process to turn rocks into intelligent beings that have the capacity to use them for a purpose?

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:27, November 14, 2012
Line 24:		Line 24:

	=====Explanatory Filter Step 2 – Ruling Chance In or Out=====		=====Explanatory Filter Step 2 – Ruling Chance In or Out=====
		+	[[Image:5712dawkins.jpg\|alt=Richard Dawkins\|right\|thumbnail\|200px\|[[Richard Dawkins]] is a prominent [[atheism\|atheist]] and [[evolution\|evolutionist]]. [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."]]
	Taking the second step of the explanatory filter, if necessity can’t explain a pattern, such as the patterns in DNA, then perhaps chance can explain it. Perhaps random assortments of chemicals came together to produce the first messages of life, for example. After life got started, maybe random mutations in the initial messages would occasionally generate positive functional novelty that would be embraced by the environment. Is 4 billion years enough time for a chance process to turn rocks into intelligent beings that have the capacity to use them for a purpose?		Taking the second step of the explanatory filter, if necessity can’t explain a pattern, such as the patterns in DNA, then perhaps chance can explain it. Perhaps random assortments of chemicals came together to produce the first messages of life, for example. After life got started, maybe random mutations in the initial messages would occasionally generate positive functional novelty that would be embraced by the environment. Is 4 billion years enough time for a chance process to turn rocks into intelligent beings that have the capacity to use them for a purpose?

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:46, September 23, 2008
(No difference)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 [[Image:Explanfilter.jpg‎|thumbnail|275px|right|William Dembski's explanatory filter]]
-Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading [[intelligent design]] theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194228951&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194229141&sr=1-7</ref>  Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary.  One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the [[Explanatory Filter]].
+Dr. [[William Dembski]] is a leading [[intelligent design]] theorist, and has written several books on the subject, including ''Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology'',<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194228951&sr=1-2</ref> and ''The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)''.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_7/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194229141&sr=1-7</ref>  Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary.  One of Dembski's contributions to the intelligent design movement is to set forth one method of detecting design, a method he describes as the '''explanatory filter'''.
-Dembski describes his three-part '''Explanatory Filter''' together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.<ref>http://www.arn.org</ref> In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm</ref>
+Dembski describes his three-part explanatory filter together with an example of its use in a paper published at '''Access Research Network'''.<ref>http://www.arn.org</ref> In the paper, entitled ''The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design'',<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm</ref>
 Dembski found that all formal design detection methodologies can be reduced to three logical steps in what he refers to as an explanatory filter.   The filter first asks whether a given pattern is best explained by some chemical or physical necessity or law?  If not, can it be explained by chance.  If chance and necessity can’t explain the pattern, does it exhibit a “specification” or apparent purpose?  If a complex pattern reflecting the integration of numerous stopping points does exhibit purpose and can’t be explained by chance or necessity, then the scientific, logical inference to the best explanation is design.
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 =====Explanatory Filter Step 1 – Ruling Necessity In or Out=====
-Step one of the Explanatory Filter asks if some physical or chemical ''necessity'' explains the apparent design of a natural object.  Consider, for example, a snowflake or salt crystal.  Is a snowflake or a salt crystal a design or an occurrence? That is, can a snowflake or salt crystal be explained as being a necessity constrained by known, immutable laws of physics?  The answer is yes.  Taking a snowflake as an example, the physical properties of hydrogen and oxygen ions that form H2O under certain conditions of temperature and pressure produce intricate hexagonal shapes by known physical laws of thermodynamics.   Accordingly, one need not invoke an intelligence cause to explain a snowflake or salt crystal.
+Step one of the explanatory filter asks if some physical or chemical ''necessity'' explains the apparent design of a natural object.  Consider, for example, a snowflake or salt crystal.  Is a snowflake or a salt crystal a design or an occurrence? That is, can a snowflake or salt crystal be explained as being a necessity constrained by known, immutable laws of physics?  The answer is yes.  Taking a snowflake as an example, the physical properties of hydrogen and oxygen ions that form H2O under certain conditions of temperature and pressure produce intricate hexagonal shapes by known physical laws of thermodynamics.   Accordingly, one need not invoke an intelligence cause to explain a snowflake or salt crystal.
 However, can physical and chemical necessity explain the particular sequence of genetic symbols of DNA that carry the messages of life?  Interestingly, the answer is no.  The genetic symbols consisting of nucleotide bases of adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine (AGTC) can be arranged in any order.  Unlike the chemistry of a snowflake or salt crystal, the physical and chemical properties of the four genetic symbols, like dots and dashes in a Morse code message, can hook into any position along the sugar-phosphate backbone of DNA.  Just as the letters on this page can be ordered in any sequence, the genetic symbols that specify the letters of life can be arranged in any order to communicate a nearly infinite variety of messages.    Watson and Crick predicted this peculiar characteristic, for if the structure of DNA were driven by law, it could not carry the information necessary to generate the seemingly infinite variety of life:
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 =====Explanatory Filter Step 2 – Ruling Chance In or Out=====
-Taking the second step of the Explanatory Filter, if necessity can’t explain a pattern, such as the patterns in DNA, then perhaps chance can explain it.  Perhaps random assortments of chemicals came together to produce the first messages of life, for example.  After life got started, maybe random mutations in the initial messages would occasionally generate positive functional novelty that would be embraced by the environment.  Is 4 billion years enough time for a chance process to turn rocks into intelligent beings that have the capacity to use them for a purpose?
+Taking the second step of the explanatory filter, if necessity can’t explain a pattern, such as the patterns in DNA, then perhaps chance can explain it.  Perhaps random assortments of chemicals came together to produce the first messages of life, for example.  After life got started, maybe random mutations in the initial messages would occasionally generate positive functional novelty that would be embraced by the environment.  Is 4 billion years enough time for a chance process to turn rocks into intelligent beings that have the capacity to use them for a purpose?
 Calculating the odds is not always easy because one cannot always know all the steps necessary to get from point A to point B – to get from no life to life.  Darwin could not even look into the cell, much less count the steps, the number of times matter would have to be precisely stopped and started to get life.  Also, the possible alternatives at each step are not easy to ascertain.  A calculation of probability requires one to divide a particular outcome (e.g., heads in a coin flip), by the number of possible different outcomes (two – heads or tails), times the number of opportunities for the outcome to occur (the number of flips available).  If a stadium is filled with 10,000 flippers, we would expect about five flippers to get ten heads in a row, the odds of which are 1 over 2,048.  This is because 10,000 times 1/2048 is 4.88.  But what if one needed 500 heads in a row, or a very specific sequence of 500 heads and tails or zeros and ones?  How many people would one need in the stadium?  How many monkeys banging away at typewriters could be expected to generate the first sentence of the Gettysburg address?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:26, May 25, 2008
Line 56:		Line 56:
	== References ==		== References ==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}
		+
		+	[[Category:Intelligent Design]]