Reinstating the Explanatory Filter

_{William Dembski

December 10, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter in favor of just going with straight-up specified complexity. On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection.

P.S. Congrats to Denyse O’Leary, whose Post-Darwinist blog tied for third in the science and technology category from the Canadian Blog Awards.

Comments

I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time… I agree, but keep in mind that it still ranks far behind Darwin’s theory, which is, as we all know, The Best Idea Anyone Ever Had. Congrats to Denyse indeed! How did those guys come up with the courage to vote for her blog? Aren’t they risking their careers and reputations by giving credibility to creationists who are attempting to destroy science and establish a theocracy?GilDodgen_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

I am trying to explain the EF to a friend who does not have any of your books Mr Dembski so I was hoping somewhere there was an example of it's use on the web. Anyone?GSV_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

DaveScot: Right. I came up with the EF on observing example after example in which people were trying to sift among necessity, chance, and design to come up with the right explanation. The EF is what philosophers of science call a "rational reconstruction" -- it takes pre-theoretic ordinary reasoning and attempts to give it logical precision. But what gets you to the design node in the EF is SC (specified complexity). So working with the EF or SC end up being interchangeable. In THE DESIGN OF LIFE (published 2007), I simply go with SC. In UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN (published 2008), I go back to the EF. I was thinking of just sticking with SC in the future, but with critics crowing about the demise of the EF, I'll make sure it stays in circulation.William Dembski_{December 10, 2008
December
12
Dec
10
10
2008
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

Good. The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it. In fact I would say that the basic structure of the explanatory filter is instinctive in the human species. All of us use it frequently to distinguish between true and false.DaveScot_{December 10, 2008
December
12
Dec
10
10
2008
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

William Dembski: "Does this mean you have not read THE DESIGN REVOLUTION? Read Part II and get back to me. For a carefully nuanced exposition of the EF and how chance, necessity, and design relate, see especially ch. 11." No, I haven't. But I was alluding to your comment that *implied* "chance" and "design" *were* mutually exclusive when you stated that they were not in the off-hand comment. I will, with great interest, read TDR. Also, if I recall correctly, you said in "Intelligent Design" (1999) that mutation cannot be random based on the existence of specified complexity. Of course, I agree. Buttressing this fact and its logic is the existence of Intelligence and Design, and adaptation, seen in every aspect of nature. RayR. Martinez_{December 10, 2008
December
12
Dec
10
10
2008
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

R. Martinez: Does this mean you have not read THE DESIGN REVOLUTION? Read Part II and get back to me. For a carefully nuanced exposition of the EF and how chance, necessity, and design relate, see especially ch. 11.William Dembski_{December 10, 2008
December
12
Dec
10
10
2008
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

William Dembski: "In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter...." Does this mean rejection of mechanisms tied to a genuine element of "chance" (mechanisms that we know do not exist)? Does this mean "chance" & "design" are, in fact, mutually exclusive? If not, you should consider facts explained briefly in post #47 of the extended Professor Olofsson topic, facts that you seem to have forgotten temporarily when you posted the "off-hand comment[s]." RayR. Martinez_{December 10, 2008
December
12
Dec
10
10
2008
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

By all means, keep the X filter. It seems like the best way to sum up the overall methodology of using specified complexity in the first place.F2XL_{December 10, 2008
December
12
Dec
10
10
2008
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Maybe you can even refine it some: Is it necessity i.e. is there any law that can explain it or can increase the chance of it happening as per a Fisherian null hypothesis? Can it be chance using a probability based on a Fisherian null hypothesis? If no, to both you have design.tribune7_{December 10, 2008
December
12
Dec
10
10
2008
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, You told us previously what was wrong with the EF. What was wrong with your statement of what was wrong?Sal Gal_{December 10, 2008
December
12
Dec
10
10
2008
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

Brilliant! I guess that is why this guy didn't get the "thank you" he was hopin' for. Those guys will be very upset. . . shame that.Robbie_{December 10, 2008
December
12
Dec
10
10
2008
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

All the EF does is increase the burden of proof for design. It doesn't hurt anything.tribune7_{December 10, 2008
December
12
Dec
10
10
2008
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply