Where’s a good “explanatory filter” when we need one?

I was not planning to post this on my own blog, since appreciation of this would require more familiarity with “ID theory” than people in Curriculum Studies would generally need (in particular, Dembski’s use of his “explanatory filter”). I did post it as a comment on the Panda’s Thumb blog, whose readers are immersed in such things. Now, as a follow up to a post by jbruno on FFS!, I will post it here as well:

Where’s a good “explanatory filter” when we need one? Which do you suppose is the “best explanation,” in terms of probabilities: (1) this single specific omission was purely a random “mutation” of the list (as the DoE people are now saying), or (2) it happened by intentional design?

jbruno concludes by asking “Don’t they [at the Department of Education] have enough to worry about?” That’s really the point of my earlier post: to provoke Congressional interest so they really have to worry about these kinds of shenanigans!



One Comment

  1. Posted August 25, 2006 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    Tony, I think you’re off to a great start here at curricublog, and I would like to trade links with you from The Voltage Gate and FFS!.

    I’ll add you to my Blogroll tonight.

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: