Replies

I was using THAT timeline presented to me to show that it can't be possibly done.

The billions timeline or the millions timeline?

This sounds like the tautology --- They survived because because they are the fittest

You're having a hard time with probabilities. Because we are here, and because the Bible tells you so, you seem to think that we are the end desired result. With that thinking, a priori probabilities calculations are valid in theory, it is almost impossible.

But you still try to argue science (now statistics) with your theological view. The scientific view does not require us as the intended outcome, and with no intended outcome all a priori probabilities calculations of us existing go completely out the window.

IOW, I care that the cards are shuffled, not that are shuffled in a particular order.

Michael J. Behe, The Weekly Standard, June 7, 1999 (Professor Department of Biological Science Lehigh University)

This is the guy whose definition of a scientific theory includes astrology, right?

The billions timeline or the millions timeline?

Regardless, 3.5 M or 3.5 B there JUST ISN'T ENOUGH TIME GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY INVOLVED.

You're having a hard time with probabilities.

No. YOU have a hard time with probabilities. Mathematicians like David Berlinski, Granville Sewell ( not to mention William Dembski ) and even Astrophycisists like Sir Fred Hoyle have expressed their doubts about all of these happening by chance. You want to call these men probability-challenged too ?

Because we are here, and because the Bible tells you so, you seem to think that we are the end desired result.

Hmmm... why did you mention the Bible ? I never even brought it up.

With that thinking, a priori probabilities calculations are valid in theory

Yep, they are valid in YOUR MIND. No wonder the vast majority of Americans aren't buying it.

it is almost impossible.

If by that you mean Random mutation alone producing what we have today without intelligent input, ABSOLUTELY.

But you still try to argue science (now statistics) with your theological view.

Which theological view ? I never even mentioned God at all. You seem to think that only theists doubt Darwinism. David Berlinski and Michael Denton aren't even believers, yet they have openly expressed their doubts.

The scientific view does not require us as the intended outcome,

But since we are the outcome, and since by everyday observation ( a basic tenet of science ), we do not see complex things happen without intelligent input, I don't see why postulating intelligent agents as the better explanation to what we have is invalid.

and with no intended outcome all a priori probabilities calculations of us existing go completely out the window.

As I said, this is not based on observation but an ASSERTION. You have faith that it happened that way, good for you. I don't have that much faith.

IOW, I care that the cards are shuffled,

Shuffled is a verb. WHO DID THE SHUFFLING ?

not that are shuffled in a particular order.

Sure, and you got the card that you want. The question I have is this --- does the card have sentience ? Can It reason ?

This is the guy whose definition of a scientific theory includes astrology, right?

Ahh yes, the same canard that keeps circulating.

See here :

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3157

And here :

http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/2006/11/michael-behe-and-astrology-what-did-he_8368.html

For those who are interested in what Michael Behe actually meant.

After the discussion resulting from the previous post on this subject I thought I would ask him....

Q1. At the deposition for the Dover trial when you were asked the question about astrology where you answered "It could be...Yes" were you thinking of "astrology" as it is practiced in terms of the present day...horoscopes etc or were you thinking in terms of astrology related to astronomy in the history of science... or something else?

(deposition statement)

17 Q. Using your definition of theory, is Creationism -- using

18 your definition of scientific theory, is Creationism a

19 scientific theory?

20 Behe. No.

21 Q. What about creation science?

22 Behe. No.

23 Q. Is astrology a theory under that definition?

24 Behe. Is astrology? It could be, yes.

Michael Behe:

I was not thinking of the modern superstition of astrology, but of the idea of astrology in the middle ages, when people were trying to discern what forces actually were in play in nature. After all, if planetary bodies such as the moon and sun could affect the tides on earth, perhaps they could affect other things as well, such as people's behavior. We now know that to be wrong, but at the time it was a reasonable idea, based on physical evidence. I am told by some historians of science that the educated classes of Europe thought astrology to be quite scientific.

Q2. At the time of your deposition statement did you believe that astrology (as it is understood and practiced today) was included within your broader definition of "scientific theory?"

Michael Behe:

No, not modern astrology, as practiced by card readers with bandanas on their heads and such. I had in mind astrology of centuries ago, when educated people thought it might really have explanatory power.

Q3. Do you currently believe that astrology (as it is understood and practiced today) is included now within your broader definition of "scientific theory?"

Michael Behe:

No, of course not. Best wishes. Mike Behe

This was what I had surmised from reading the transcript of Behe from the trial. It is good to know that I had understood his position correctly.