Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. 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.
Recent Comments
- Mike Stiber on June 1, 2005 06:44 PM
- Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 31, 2005 08:20 AM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by PvM on May 30, 2005 08:09 PM
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?
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1085
Comment #33138
Posted by Mike Stiber on June 1, 2005 06:44 PM (e) (s)
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.
Comment #32868
Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 31, 2005 08:20 AM (e) (s)
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.