markf asks what observation would falsify ID. Gpuccio responded that an example of an incredibly improbable digital string that was developed in a stochastic system would tend to falsify ID and gave as an example 500 coins tosses that when interpreted as a code spelled out a meaningful message.
Not good enough says markf. “Nothing can falsify ID if you make no assumptions about the designer – because a designer of unspecified powers and motives can produce anything.” In other words, gpuccio’s example assumes that the designer does not capriciously intervene in the outcome of coin tosses.
Yes, we assume that. And we also assume that we are not plugged into the Matrix with all of our sense impressions being fed to us by a super-computer. Give me a break.
Quite by coincidence I was reading Burke tonight and came across this passage that reminded me of markf’s objection:
I do not, my dear Sir, conceive you to be of that sophistical*, captious** spirit, or of that uncandid dullness, as to require, for every general observation or sentiment, an explicit detail of the correctives and exceptions which reason will presume to be included in all the general propositions which come from reasonable men.
*Given to sophistry, i.e., a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
**apt or designed to ensnare or perplex.