At one point in his Design Revolution he indicates that the design component could have been placed in matter with the big bang at the beginning of the universe (my comment: in this case ID would fall under the anthropic principle). At another point (chapter 19) he suggests that information enters ex nihilo (with a little help from quantum indeterminacy)--not at the beginning of the universe, but--after the creation of the universe. I suppose both could be affirmed as partial explanations, so it is not a case of a clear-cut inconsistency. But why isn't he clear on this?
Maybe he is treating this issue an an empirical one and is exploring two possible options that would both be consistent with the very general thesis that some type of ID at some time helped originate the present species.
Also, maybe the talk of ex nihilo another way of saying that design is not something that you can quantify. It's a kind of qualia, as in the qualia that escape description of sensation in Nagel's "What's it like to be a bat?" Certainly Dembski wouldn't agree to this proposal. But maybe it has some basis... (more on this later, I hope).
[later figured out that he is trying to keep the issue of timing open].
Maybe he is treating this issue an an empirical one and is exploring two possible options that would both be consistent with the very general thesis that some type of ID at some time helped originate the present species.
Also, maybe the talk of ex nihilo another way of saying that design is not something that you can quantify. It's a kind of qualia, as in the qualia that escape description of sensation in Nagel's "What's it like to be a bat?" Certainly Dembski wouldn't agree to this proposal. But maybe it has some basis... (more on this later, I hope).
[later figured out that he is trying to keep the issue of timing open].
Comments