For years, Darwinists have howled about Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter.” It was unscientific, they claimed. It is purely subjective. Etc.
Yet, thinking human beings understand statistics fairly well and they know when to look for an explanation when the odds become too one-sided.
Here’s an example of a government intelligence guy explaining how a poker cheat got caught. Plain and simple, the odds were too stacked against his winning streak.
What put these bloodhounds on the trail of the alleged cheat wasn’t the phone in his lap, or the strange shape of the side of his cap. It was the numbers. The percentages. The law of averages. The wholly improbable, unprecedented, all but impossible string of perfect decisions and corresponding cash-outs that could not possibly be accomplished without, well, cheating.
If Darwin ‘cheats’ the truth, biologists–most of them are completely uninformed of the weaknesses of the theory, but the one’s who do know, look the other way.
I stated four years ago that Darwinism was dead, that the defenders of Darwin were wrong and that we had won the debate. The debates that once took place on this blog are now much rarer simply because there isn’t much to debate now. It is only a matter of time.
But, I hope our Darwinian Defenders nonetheless read the linked article and start thinking for themselves.
Reminds me of this quote: ” either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,”
“Poker bloggers” were able to figure this out.
On the other hand … some others we know of haven’t quite gotten that far.
Pattern Formation in the Drosophila Embryo
Morphogen Tissue Patterning
Blatant
PaV, PaV, PaV, the patterns that led the poker bloggers to conclude “cheater,” are easily explained. Everyone knows we live in one of an infinite number of universes. In the multiverse in which we live, not only are the patterns not impossible, they are inevitable in at least one universe. We just happen to live in the universe in which these patterns were instantiated. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Barry Arrington
You state everyone knows we live in one of infinite universes. Where is the evidence to support your belief? Has it ever been observed? Has there ever been a test done to prove it is more than a thought experiment? Just because you like the idea of infinite universes does not make it so. There are those who truly believe the world is flat. Despite no actual evidence to support their claim.
Satire Bob. But your response leads me to believe that Poe’s Law might make it impossible to satirize where the multiverse is concerned.
BA, of course, Poe was targetting stereotypical, strawman caricature Creationists, building on Dawkins’ ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. But now, with the absurdities implicit in the quasi-infinite multiverse assertion, the shoe is most definitely on the other foot. However, even in such a multiverse, a Boltzmann brain argument applies. Considering this local sub-cosmos it is far more likely that design has occurred when we see signs that are credibly supportive of such an inference, than that we are in some bizarro sub-cosmos that communicates that delusional connexion between apparently empirically and analytically reliable sign and what it seems to signify. Local rationality and the epistemic right of prudent induction prevail over bizarre, empirically unsupported speculation. KF
PS: Walker and Davies have summ’at to say, too:
I remember this coming up when do-it-yourself encryption was a thing. Someone pointed out, lighting up everyone’s lightbulbs, that the detection of encrypted information in one’s communications, in the form of apparent gibberish, would itself be a tell. So she came up with an application that embedded the encrypted data into what looked like pictures.
If I recall correctly, the first examples she produced were watercolors of her cat playing the piano. So now you and Paul Harvey know, “the rest of the story… 🙂
Steganography
(Now, wouldn’t it be interesting to find hidden information in “junk DNA”?)
KF, it doesn’t surprise me that she was cheating, even though that was back in 1498.
This reminds me of Nicholas Taleb’s imaginary characters, Fat Tony and Dr John.
https://harveynick.com/2018/11/11/ideas-which-changed-my-perspective-part-2-of-5-dr-john-and-fat-tony/