[js1138]

We are not discussing letters of the alphabet. We are discussing the behavior of a living system. If I tried to predict where you will be exactly 365 days from now at this hour and minute, the odds against a successful prediction are pretty slim. Same with predicting the weather for next year. This does not make the actual outcomes outcomes designed.

When ID advocates talk about specified complexity they are starting with an existing outcome and calulating the odds of getting from a past condition to the current condition. Such odds are always astronomical if the conditions involve complex systems.

Evolution isn't about predicting specific winners and losers, except in the sense that the house always wins. You can take that to the bank.

[VadeRetro]

When ID advocates talk about specified complexity they are starting with an existing outcome and calulating the odds of getting from a past condition to the current condition. Such odds are always astronomical if the conditions involve complex systems.

Another fallacy that we're using a made-up name for on these threads: Retrospective Astonishment. PH's idea, I think.

[Fester Chugabrew]

When ID advocates talk about specified complexity they are starting with an existing outcome.

How can one practice science at all without "starting with an existing outcome?"