From: LARRY KLAES (ljk4_at_msn.com)
Date: Tue Sep 20 2005 - 20:27:53 UTC
>From: Barry Karr <SkeptInq_at_AOL.COM>
>Reply-To: CSICOP Announcement <CSICOP-ANNOUNCE_at_LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
>To: CSICOP-ANNOUNCE_at_LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>Subject: CSICOP Online: Creation & Intelligent Design Watch
>Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:13:18 EDT
>
>
>
>Creation & Intelligent Design Watch
>
>
>
>CAN PROBABILITY THEORY BE USED TO REFUTE EVOLUTION? (PART TWO)
>By Jason Rosenhouse
>[_read Part One here_
>(http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/probability-one.html) ]
>Arguments based on probability theory are a mainstay of creationist
>literature. There you can find elaborate calculations purporting to measure
>the
>probability that a given complex biological structure (an eye, say, or a
>hemoglobin molecule) could have evolved by natural processes. Such
>calculations
>invariably include a tiny number at the end, and from this number we are
>meant to
>conclude that evolution has been refuted.
>We saw last time that all such arguments fail. There are two reasons for
>this. First, the probability of evolving a given biological structure over
>long
>periods of time is affected by so many immeasurable variables that there is
>no
> way of carrying out a meaningful calculation. Second, learning after the
>fact that something terribly improbable occurred provides no reason for
>inferring design.
>But we also considered the possibility of enhancing our argument from
>improbability in the following way: While it is true that improbability by
>itself
>provides no reason for suspicion, it is possible that the combination of
>improbability with a clearly recognizable pattern does provide such a
>reason.
>Tossing one hundred heads in a row would make us suspicious in a way that
>tossing
>a random jumble of one hundred heads and tails would not, though the two
>sequences are equally improbable.
>To Read More of This Column Visit:
>_http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/_
>(http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/)
>Comments on the column should be address to Jason Rosenhouse at
>_rosenhjd_at_jmu.edu_ (mailto:rosenhjd_at_jmu.edu)
>Jason Rosenhouse is the author of _EvolutionBlog_
>(http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/) , providing commentary on
>developments in the endless dispute
>between evolution and creationism.
>Please do not respond to the listserv. Other comments should be addressed
>to: _skeptinq_at_aol.com_ (mailto:skeptinq_at_aol.com)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Sep 20 2005 - 20:35:59 UTC