[Physicist]

If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random character per second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement.

There's the flaw in his argument. He's demanding a specific change, and saying it either requires long odds or teleology. He's right...but that's not how evolution works.

In the real world, random changes occur first, and only afterwards is it selected based upon fitness. But fit for what purpose? Even that is unspecified before the change occurs! Organisms either find uses for the changes that their given, or they don't. If they find a use, and it helps the organism survive, then the change looks somehow preordained, and the odds against it seem long. But it's only teleological in the Pee-wee Herman sense: "I meant to do that!"

[js1138]

But it's only teleological in the Pee-wee Herman sense: "I meant to do that!"

Dembski is definitely the Pee-Wee Herman of mathematics. It's fun to watch his web site, wondering what Nigerian email scam he'll fall for next.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

Just curious. As far as you know, is there a compelling mathematical argument in support of macro-evolution? Does it involve the theory of computability, complexity theory, etc.?