In this post I demonstrated beyond the slightest doubt that Lizzie made a design inference based on nothing more than the existence of CSI embedded in a radio signal.
Lizzie responds:
Barry, I did NOT make the inference “based upon nothing but the existence of CSI”!
My inference had nothing to do with CSI.
It was a Bayesian inference based on two priors:
My priors concerning the probability that other parts of the universe host intelligent life forms capable of sending radio signals (high)
My priors concerning the probability that a non-intelligent process might generate such a signal (low).
To which bevets aptly responded: “Can you give any evidence based description of the ‘intelligent life forms’ other than the evidence that they are sending a code?”
And I added this commentary:
Exactly bevets. Thank you. It really is astonishing that Lizzie does not see this. I am certain she is acting in perfect good faith.* Yet she does not seem to be able to see the glaringly obvious. As I demonstrated beyond the slightest doubt above, Lizzie herself made a design inference based on nothing more than the fact that the code contained CSI. Yet she denies that she did any such thing. This is not rhetoric — it is truly amazing to behold.
*By which I mean that I believe when she made this comment she believed it to be true even though a moment’s thought demonstrates that it cannot possibly be true. She is not lying. She was literally driven to this irrational comment by her deeply held faith commitment to her metaphysical presuppositions.