[Fester Chugabrew]

"My favorite example is the card deck. Shuffle a deck of 52 thoroughly and lay it out. Whatever it is you're seeing, it had one chance in 52 factorial (52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48 ... x 1) of being there. Wow! Not very likely!"

If this is your concept, albeit on a large scale, of how the universe and history is unfolding, you've taken your self out of the realm of predicatibility, and by extension out of the realm of science.

So which do you want? Predicatability based on laws that were established from the start, or laws that developed themselves out of a state of total unpredictability? Guess which of these two makes most sense to real scientists, common man, and the Bible?

[VadeRetro]

If this is your concept, albeit on a large scale, of how the universe and history is unfolding, you've taken your self out of the realm of predicatibility, and by extension out of the realm of science.

It's my concept of why all the creation/ID (im)probability computations (usually for processes nobody understands in the first place) are fallacious in the extreme. For that matter, however, many processes in nature are indeed so chaotic as to be intractable to straighforward analysis. Science handles this "chaos" just fine. The creationist attitude, OTOH ...

So which do you want? Predicatability based on laws that were established from the start, or laws that developed themselves out of a state of total unpredictability? Guess which of these two makes most sense to real scientists, common man, and the Bible?

Shrug, give up, cite any difficulties and any "improbabilities" as proof of the supernatural! The whole approach is and forever will be useless, whether or not you call it science.