Once More from the Top on “Mechanism”

We often get some variation of “Until ID proposes a ‘mechanism’
for how the design is accomplished, it cannot be taken seriously as an
explanation for origins.”

Here is an example from frequent commenter Bob O’H (who, after years of participation on this site should know better):

If ID is correct, then the design has to have happened somehow, so a “how” theory has to exist.

OK, Bob, once more from the top:

Suppose someone printed your post on a piece of paper and
handed it to an investigator.  We’ll call
him Johnny.  The object of the
investigation is to determine whether the text on the paper was produced by an intelligent
agent or a random letter generator. 

Johnny, using standard design detection techniques, concludes that the text exhibits CSI at greater than 500 bits, and reaches the screamingly obvious conclusion that it was designed and not the product of a random letter generator.

“Ha!” the skeptic says. 
“Johnny did not propose a mechanism by which someone designed the
text.  Therefore his design inference is
invalid.  If his design inference is
correct, then the design has to have happened somehow, so a ‘how’ theory has to
exist.”

Bob, is the objection to Johnny’s conclusion valid?

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana