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.