Re: My views on evolution

Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> r norman wrote:
> > On 6 Aug 2005 17:40:12 -0700, "Stephen Montgomery-Smith"
> > <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > The simple fact is that the probability calculations proposed by IDers
> > are totally flawed from beginning to end.

> Most likely I didn't make myself clear in my original post, but I was
> actually critisizing this "probabilistic" line of argument that the ID
> movement use, just as you did. Its main flaw is that we have
> absolutely no idea what the underlying probability space is, or how to
> calculate these probabilities. Their calculations have the same
> speculative feel to them as say Drake's equation (to estimate how many
> intelligent civilizations there are in the universe).

> Nevertheless, I do think it very likely that the I.D. people are
> correct in their conclusions, even if their reasoning is wrong. I have
> to admit that is based upon my interpretation of the Bible - I feel
> that the Genesis account is incompatible with humans evolving from
> lesser species, even if the Genesis account is interpreted
> metaphorically. I think that currently evolution is ahead with regards
> to the scientific evidence, but that the scientific evidence is
> sufficiently incomplete that it is too early to declare a winner.


Oh, really? Let's turn that sort of critique around. What is the
evidence to declare the Bible story even *remotely* likely to be correct?
How 'incomplete' is the Bible story, compared to the scientific view?

Or to put it bluntly: Why so rigorous a set of hurdles as regards
scientific evidence, while giving the Bible a free pass?

Re-engage your critical faculties, please. Your religion is making
you foolish...and surely a God who guided the evolution of
our brains wouldn't want it put to such shoddy use.


> Anyway, this does suggest to me that God may well be actively hiding
> the good evidence of his intelligent design.

Of course, an explanation like that explains *everything*..and
therefore *nothing*.


--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BAYESIAN (weighted) PROBABILITY ??
    ... > where Pis the prior probability. ... liklihood ratio actually already contains the weights. ... that GOD=G_uv is CORRECT, given the scientific evidence". ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: card counters and dice counters
    ... my opinion is that current probability ... Evil Nigel ... considered incomplete until they were proven beyond any doubt to be ... current probability theory seems to hold up under the most critical ...
    (rec.gambling.craps)
  • Re: Random Probability
    ... most said it is a classic problem ... set was incomplete in the first N-1 instances) ... The probability for the latter event is ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Where Was Jesus Born?
    ... >and credentialled authority, it seems to me there is as much ... >probability that it was complete as there is that it was incomplete. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (soc.religion.mormon)