PvM posted Entry 1087 on May 30, 2005 08:09 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1085

Gonzalez said this common charge isn’t true and reflects mistaken beliefs about science by its critics.

“They come from a specific philosophical point of view,” he said. “Any explanation apart from law and chance is not permitted in science.”

October 12, 2004 A universal debate By Lucas Grundmeier Daily Staff Writer

What else is there other than law and chance? Ignorance?

Also remember that in Privileged Planet, Gonzalez et al do not eliminate chance and law, only chance. In other words, they accept that laws can explain the universe.
Why is it that ID proponents have no problem accepting front loading in astronomy but insist on intervention in biology?

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #32868

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 31, 2005 8:20 AM (e)

PvM wrote:

Why is it that ID proponents have no problem accepting front loading in astronomy but insist on intervention in biology?

I realize your question was probably rhetorical, but I think the answer is that they start with the conclusion “God did it” and look for any hypothesis which will support that conclusion.

Comment #33138

Posted by Mike Stiber on June 1, 2005 6:44 PM (e)

PvM wrote:

Also remember that in Privileged Planet, Gonzalez et al do not eliminate chance and law, only chance.

They don’t eliminate chance, they depend on it. Their argument is based on the idea that, if you pull enough bogus small probabilities out of your ass, and assume they’re all independent, then their product will be so small that, even when multiplied by the number of stars in the galaxy, the result will still be a small number.

They’re also banking on the chance that their viewers won’t figure out it’s all B.S.