> the chief objection to the theory of evolution is not so much complexity (such as irreducible complexity v Kolmogorov v self-organizing etc.) - as it is that “randomness” cannot be the prime factor in the formulation
If that's the chief objection... it's a pretty lame one. Hard to believe that anyone with a basic scientific education would buy into the Creationist bunkum. Oh, wait... ahrdly anyone with a basic scientific education *does* buy into it.
>Gerald Schroeder points out that a typical protein is a chain of 300 amino acids and that there are 20 common amino acids in life which means that that the number of possible combinations for the protein would be 20^300 or 10^390.
...
> That is, of course, absurd.
Yes, it is. His math is silly and ridiculous.
> because we as yet do not have a full explanation for space/time and energy/matter – it is impossible to say that what we presume is randomness (for instance at the quantum level) is actually random in the system.
Freshman-level stoned philosophy major hogwash.
you: Freshman-level stoned philosophy major hogwash.
And on combination v Bayesian probability - and the various types of complexity, would you care to discuss the math?
I've been a nuclear reactor operator for a number of years. A bunch of my friends are also ROs, and several, not all of course, accept ID. So are we just a bunch of "hardly-s"?
In what way, orionblamblam?