"cnctut" <cnctutwiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>T Wake wrote:
> (some snipped for length)
>> I don't for one second wish to imply that science implies there is "no"
>> intelligent designer - simply that "ID" and creationism are not science.
> I don't believe in my examples I've ever suggested ID was science--what
> I've tried to point out by example is that certain aspects of current
> "science" thought has no more claim to science than ID.
Ok, and I agree here. Some things that people claim are "science" are not
This is a thread on usenet and while replies may point at one person or
another's messages, the effect is for a generalised debate. The debate that
ID is being presented as a science, and as a result should be taught in
science lessons is the main one (again IMHO). If I am wrong and we are
discussing something else (maybe related to physics?) then I appologise.
>> This may change in years to come (although I doubt that). Redefining
>> "science" to suit the needs of ID is a sign of its weakness. ID has
>> flaws in that it uses circular logic as its basis.
> To that I say "show me the math." The mathematical probability that man
> grew from pond scum is magnitudes smaller than an electron shadow.
> Statistically, it could happen--but not as likely as my example with
> the monkeys and typewriters.
Very true. As I have no idea what the exact probabilities are I can not give
you hard and fast numbers however we can do a thought experiment.
Lets assume that the chance of mankind evolving from protozoan amoebas on
any given planet is 0.000000001%.
Next, we need to identify how many planets there are in the universe. For
the ease of the mathematics we will assume the universe is not infinite, but
simply has (based on
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part8/section-3.html) 400 billion
Again, the "habitable zones" where humanity can evolve probably allow for
0-2 planets to form. So we will assume 1 potential planet per star as an
Finally we can put these two figures together - 0.000000001% x 4x10^11 =
There is a 400% chance that life will form on a planet somewhere.Even given
the 50% either way error bars, this means we are probably not alone in the
Now, you may quibble with the first percentage but that is moot - the
universe has an infinte number of stars. This means, no matter how low you
make the random chance it will still eventually reach 100%.
Where the star / planet bearing life is, isnt relevant.
Can you, in good faith, explain to me how you work out the mathematical
probability that an "Intelligent designer" has designed everything?
>> As stated elsewhere, requiring science to support your faith it a flawed
> I don't require science to support my faith--but I find it refreshing
> when it does. ;-)
Cool. Glad to hear it.
>>Scientific "proofs" are often overthrown and re-developed.
> Yes, and many have been taught as "science."
Science is, by its nature, an uncertain subject. How else would you have
>> I am sure most religious zealots would not appreciate this. Is the end
>> goal to
>> redefine science into a religious state and then stifle its development?
>> (Does this sound familiar?)
> I have no end goal--other than to seek the truth. How about this
> twist--assume ID is true and attempt to prove that it isn't.
I don't have a problem with that in theory.
Better still, lets assume the universe is actually in a test tube being
experimented on by a race of giant space bananas, who in turn live in a
universe where everything is blue. Prove this isn't true.