A design inference from tennis: Is the fix in?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 24, 2011

Design inference, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The conspiracy theorists were busy last month when the Cleveland Cavaliers — spurned by Lebron, desperate for some good fortune, represented by a endearing teenager afflicted with a rare disease — landed the top pick in the NBA Draft. It seemed too perfect for some (not least, Minnesota Timberwolves executive David Kahn) but the odds of that happening were 2.8 percent, almost a lock compared to the odds of Isner-Mahut II.

Question: How come it’s legitimate to reason this way in tennis but not in biology? Oh wait, if we start asking those kinds of questions, we’ll be right back in the Middle Ages when they were so ignorant that …

Comments

kf:
If the thing is highly contingent but not complex and specific, we would accept chance. But complex, specific highly contingent events are not plausible chance outcomes and are on massive support explained by design.
Exactly. Chance is the null (if X doesn't reach the bar for improbability under the Chance hypothesis), and if we reject Chance (X too improbable under the null) we must infer Design. See how it's done, Mung?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Mung:
You seem to have made an understandable error about statistical terminology.
You seem to have made an error about ID. I haven’t made an error about statistical terminology. I pointed out early on that you were casting ID as a null (not design) and an alternative (design). I made it quite clear that you are wrong to do so. That that is not how ID proceeds.
Well, no, you have not made that clear. Actually, the way you describe how ID proceeds is, in fact, by casting it as H1.
You do not seek to eliminate “H1? in frequentist statistics.
And who here, other than you, is claiming that ID is an exercise in applied frequentist statistics? Frequentist statistics isn’t the only game in town.
No, I know it isn't, and I think it is inappropriate for an ID hypothesis. Some kind of Bayesian format would be much better. However, the CSI calculation is a frequentist calculation, as is the EF. And in both, Design is cast as the null. At least, you haven't persuaded me that it isn't, merely asserted it, and you haven't addressed my careful post in which I demonstrated that it is.
see here See my post at #21: What if it is not the case that “design” must be either the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis? Did you ever answer? You can say, it must be one or the other. Neither is not an option. Or you can admit the possibility that I am correct, that it does not have to boil down to design or non design.
If you want to set up a hypothesis in which there is a third option, then feel free to do so. But I'm not seeing one in either the EF, or in the definition of CSI.
Since I am the ID supporter, why wouldn’t you consider that I have a valid argument? ME: You are miscasting ID as an argument about a null hypothesis and it’s alternative hypothesis. You: huh? I didn’t stutter. It either is the case that you are casting ID that way, or it is not the case.
I'm sorry, I can't parse your statement. What's the antecedent of "it's" and who is saying that "it's [an] alternative hypothesis"?
If it is the case that that you are casting ID that way, it either is the case or it is not the case that you are miscasting ID. You are claiming that the ID argument takes the following form, true or false: Either not design or design must be the case.
No, I am not. I am saying that the ID hypothesis takes the following form: If X is more probable than alpha under the null hypothesis of no-design we must retain the null, i.e. reserve the possibility of design, but consider it undemonstrated in this case. If X is less probable than alpha under the null, we must reject the null and infer design. Apha seems to be set normally as a function of the estimated number of events in the universe That is how every formulation of CSI or the EF that I have seen is cast, and that is casting Design as H1, and no-design as the null. That's why the bar is set for Design to climb, not for no-Design to climb.
You wrote: And this is where ID goes (interestingly) wrong, IMO. … in ID … Design – is cast as the alternative hypothesis (H1). To which the null, according to you, is “not design.” Correct?
Yes.
So there can be no doubt that this is how you are casting the ID argument.
There is, I hope, no doubt that this is the way that the ID is cast. I'm not doing the casting. It's not my hypothesis. I'm just saying that's how it's expressed in the CSI formulation, and that's how it's expressed in the EF. I say you are wrong. ID is not cast as an argument of the form: (H0 aka null hyp): NOT DESIGNED (H1 aka alternative hyp) DESIGNED. Well, I think you've mis-parsed it.
If I am correct, why is it not true that you are miscasting the ID argument?
If you were correct, I would be miscasting it. However, as I am correct, it is you who are miscasting it. Sorry, Mung :) Game Lizzie.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Mung: Without making undue references to simple statistics, we may look at two hyps to be rejected in succession in a context where three are reasonable, and backed up by direct observations. If soemthing has not got low contingency whereby similar start conditions lead to similar outcomes (as driven by mechanical necessity) we have to deal with high contingency. If the thing is highly contingent but not complex and specific, we would accept chance. But complex, specific highly contingent events are not plausible chance outcomes and are on massive support explained by design. A lot of this stuff is now going in circles with Dr Liddle. I think we should just note for the record. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

You seem to have made an understandable error about statistical terminology.
You seem to have made an error about ID. I haven't made an error about statistical terminology. I pointed out early on that you were casting ID as a null (not design) and an alternative (design). I made it quite clear that you are wrong to do so. That that is not how ID proceeds.
You do not seek to eliminate “H1? in frequentist statistics.
And who here, other than you, is claiming that ID is an exercise in applied frequentist statistics? Frequentist statistics isn't the only game in town. see here See my post at #21:
What if it is not the case that “design” must be either the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis?
Did you ever answer? You can say, it must be one or the other. Neither is not an option. Or you can admit the possibility that I am correct, that it does not have to boil down to design or non design. Since I am the ID supporter, why wouldn't you consider that I have a valid argument? ME:
You are miscasting ID as an argument about a null hypothesis and it’s alternative hypothesis.
You: huh? I didn't stutter. It either is the case that you are casting ID that way, or it is not the case. If it is the case that that you are casting ID that way, it either is the case or it is not the case that you are miscasting ID. You are claiming that the ID argument takes the following form, true or false: Either not design or design must be the case. You wrote: And this is where ID goes (interestingly) wrong, IMO. … in ID … Design – is cast as the alternative hypothesis (H1). To which the null, according to you, is "not design." Correct? So there can be no doubt that this is how you are casting the ID argument. I say you are wrong. ID is not cast as an argument of the form: (H0 aka null hyp): NOT DESIGNED (H1 aka alternative hyp) DESIGNED. If I am correct, why is it not true that you are miscasting the ID argument?Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Yes, good point CY - in fact see my recent post on the extraterrestrial thread! The penny dropped half way as I was writing the post.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
My answer to that question is that the null is “non-design”.
And that’s why you are mistaken about ID. In ID there is no “non-design” hypothesis. In ID “non-design” is not the null, and therefore “design” is not the alternative hypothesis.
I accept that you believe this, but when we actually turn to the definition of CSI, and the explanatory filter, it turns out, as far as I can see, not to be the case. This is the point I tried to make at 24. I'll try again:
Therefore, I am correct when I write that you are mistaken when you say:
And this is where ID goes (interestingly) wrong, IMO. … in ID … Design – is cast as the alternative hypothesis (H1). Elizabeth Liddle: I’m not sure where in 19 you stated what the null would be.
My comment in #19 could not have been more clear, imo: There is no “not design” to which “design” is the alternative hypothesis. If “design” is the alternative hypothesis, “not design” would therefore be the null hypothesis.
Yes. Exactly.
“Not design” is not the null hypothesis, therefore it follows that “design” is not the alternative hypothesis.
Except that as far as I can tell, this is not the case.
You are miscasting ID as an argument about a null hypothesis and it’s alternative hypothesis.
huh?
Elizabeth Liddle: My answer [re: #20] depends on what you want me to regard as admissable evidence… It was a trick question. The question was stated in the terms you have been using, with “not design” as the null and “design” as the alternative. That’s not the way ID works. The first step is to eliminate regularity or natural law as a possibility. The pattern is a regular repeating pattern. We would ascribe it to necessity rather than chance (contingency). Design doesn’t even enter the equation.
By seeking to eliminate a hypothesis you are casting it as the null. You do not seek to eliminate "H1" in frequentist statistics. You seek to elminate H0.
See again: the linked EF. But you are right, the pattern was designed. I chose the first 6 letters of the alphabet, I repeated those 6 letters 6 times on each row, I did so over 6 rows. So by ascribing the pattern to necessity, we have not ruled out design. This again demonstrates that not design is not the null hypothesis.
No, it demonstrates the opposite. It means we have "retained the null" and failed to support Design (H1). Retaining the null does not mean you have falsified (ruled out H1); it means you have not supported it.
We have not said, “not design.” We have said, “necessity.” We have at most said wrt to the design question, “we don’t know.” Are we on the same page yet?
Well, apart from the fact that you are holding it upside down, yes :)
Is there anything so far that you don’t understand, or that you disagree with? Cheers
Yes. The null is what we (potentially) reject. The alternative is what we consider supported if we reject the null. If we do not reject the null (i.e. if we "retain the null") we do not reject the alternative hypothesis (i.e. we do not "rule it out"), we merely, as I said "retain the null". You seem to have made an understandable error about statistical terminology. Still, I hope we can straighten that out. It's not a big deal. http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/what_is_a_null_hypothesis Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Lizzie, Before Mung gets to this I wanted to just make a small comment: "And PaV can consider his null not “proven”, or “supported”, but retained, in the sense that we are still without a non-miraculous explanation. However, ID doesn’t work like this, which is its potential strength. In an ID hypothesis, Design (let’s leave out miracles for now) is cast as H1, and non-Design as the null (remember we must not exclude a middle)." The fact that you can "leave out the miracles for now" with ID is why there's the peculiar phenomenon of atheists and agnostics who support ID. It's rare, but an agnostic in particular can remain so. I believe however, that really thinking about ID's implications would eventually drive an atheist supporter more towards agnosticism. And what I mean is that you couldn't accept that kind of evidence and still maintain as Dawkins does that "there almost certainly is no god." Well you could, but to me it wouldn't seem at all reasonable.CannuckianYankee_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Crossposted:
Mung, would you address my question at 24?
Patience, dear. lol I was getting to it. But you should have been able to figure it out after reading my previous posts. You are casting ID as non-design v. design. That's not the way it works. Let me quote Dembski again:
When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. – William Dembski
We can fail to detect design, but from that we cannot conclude that design is not present. Clear? I really must go now. Work beckons :(Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Now, I’ve had a go at addressing your questions – can you now address the question I posed to you in 24?

Could you tell me whether or not you consider the above false, and, if so, why?
It's misguided. It's not a matter of design pitted against non design. Think of it as degree of confidence in the design hypothesis. We become more or less confident, but lack of confidence does not give us the basis upon which to say "not designed." Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you disagree? RegardsMung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Mung, would you address my question at 24? Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

The Complete IDiot’s Guide to Design Theory
abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef Q1`: Chance (Contingency) or Necessity?Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
My answer to that question is that the null is “non-design”.
And that's why you are mistaken about ID. In ID there is no "non-design" hypothesis. In ID "non-design" is not the null, and therefore "design" is not the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, I am correct when I write that you are mistaken when you say: And this is where ID goes (interestingly) wrong, IMO. … in ID … Design – is cast as the alternative hypothesis (H1). Elizabeth Liddle:
I’m not sure where in 19 you stated what the null would be.
My comment in #19 could not have been more clear, imo:
There is no “not design” to which “design” is the alternative hypothesis.
If "design" is the alternative hypothesis, "not design" would therefore be the null hypothesis. "Not design" is not the null hypothesis, therefore it follows that "design" is not the alternative hypothesis. You are miscasting ID as an argument about a null hypothesis and it's alternative hypothesis. Elizabeth Liddle:
My answer [re: #20] depends on what you want me to regard as admissable evidence...
It was a trick question. The question was stated in the terms you have been using, with "not design" as the null and "design" as the alternative. That's not the way ID works. The first step is to eliminate regularity or natural law as a possibility. The pattern is a regular repeating pattern. We would ascribe it to necessity rather than chance (contingency). Design doesn't even enter the equation. See again: the linked EF. But you are right, the pattern was designed. I chose the first 6 letters of the alphabet, I repeated those 6 letters 6 times on each row, I did so over 6 rows. So by ascribing the pattern to necessity, we have not ruled out design. This again demonstrates that not design is not the null hypothesis. We have not said, "not design." We have said, "necessity." We have at most said wrt to the design question, "we don't know." Are we on the same page yet? Is there anything so far that you don't understand, or that you disagree with? CheersMung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Mung:
Hi Lizzie, I asked a couple very simple questions. Could I have answers please? You wrote:
And this is where ID goes (interestingly) wrong, IMO. … in ID … Design – is cast as the alternative hypothesis (H1).
My first question is in post #19: …if design is the alternative hypothesis, what is the null hypothesis? I stated in my post what I thought the null would be, and from you post @24 I have no reason to think I was mistaken, but I would like to know what your response is to my question.
I'm not sure where in 19 you stated what the null would be. At one point you said that the "null hypothesis, is that it’s not a miracle". You then said: "Design is not the alternate hypothesis. Answer this question, if design is the alternative hypothesis, what is the null hypothesis?" My answer to that question is that the null is "non-design".
My second very simple question was posed in my post @20. Please view the pattern and answer, design or not design.
My answer depends on what you want me to regard as admissable evidence Obviously, taking all the evidence I have into account, I can infer design, because it is sitting there in a post by Mung, and I have good evidence that Mung is an intelligent intentional designer. If I found it, however, as it were, on a heath, and the letters are just ways of representing a repeating pattern with four elements, I would have no way of knowing. I'd probably guess non-design, if by that, you meant, not produced by an intentional designer. It could be a bit of geology, produced by some kind of cyclical process. Lake varves, for instance.
If you want to apply what you think is the null and what you think is the alternative to that scenario feel free to do so, but it’s not necessary.
No, it isn't necessary. The best way to tackle a problem like this is not to compare the predictions of a design hypothesis with the predictions under a null, because the null is huge. Better to compare it with a second alternative hypothesis (H2), e.g. some kind of geological process.
Now, since this is where you think ID goes wrong, I think it’s important to address it, and I am trying to provide a very simple explanation for why you are wrong. It doesn’t help if you don’t play along. ;) Thank you
Right. Now, I've had a go at addressing your questions - can you now address the question I posed to you in 24? Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

p.s.
Please view the pattern and answer, design or not design.
You are not required to answer one or the other if you can think of a different option.Mung_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Hi Lizzie, I asked a couple very simple questions. Could I have answers please? You wrote:
And this is where ID goes (interestingly) wrong, IMO. ... in ID ... Design – is cast as the alternative hypothesis (H1).
My first question is in post #19:
...if design is the alternative hypothesis, what is the null hypothesis?
I stated in my post what I thought the null would be, and from you post @24 I have no reason to think I was mistaken, but I would like to know what your response is to my question. My second very simple question was posed in my post @20. Please view the pattern and answer, design or not design. If you want to apply what you think is the null and what you think is the alternative to that scenario feel free to do so, but it's not necessary. Now, since this is where you think ID goes wrong, I think it's important to address it, and I am trying to provide a very simple explanation for why you are wrong. It doesn't help if you don't play along. ;) Thank youMung_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Mung, you aren't making sense to me at all. I think it's your (occasionally endearing, but most frustrating) sarcastic style. It's obscuring your meaning. I try to avoid sarcasm on the internet because it usually muddies the waters in a medium in which tone is inaudible. So I'm going to try and put this as clearly as I can, and ask you as clear a question as I can. I'd be grateful for a really straightforward answer. In a simple experiment, perhaps to test the hypothesis that a coin is unfairly weighted, we would toss it, say, 1000 times. Our hypothesis, often called the "Alternative Hypothesis" and denoted H1, is that the coin is unfair. Our null hypothesis, denoted H0 is the opposed, that the coin is fair. In other words, our null, H0, is that our H1 is false. There is no excluded middle. So we note the proportion of heads, p, in our 100 tosses, and the proportion of tails, q. p, will of course, be equal to 1-q. The expected result, under H0, is that p/q will be near 1. The expected result under H1 is that p/q will be substantially different from one. The binomial theorem tells us how likely a given observed ratio of p:q is, under H0. If our observed ratio p/q is extremely unlikely under H0, we can reject the null, H0, that the coin is fair, and can infer that H1 is probably true - that the coin is unfair. However, if the ratio is quite likely under H0, even though p/q, is not precisely 1, we can "retain the null". We do not consider the null "supported", we merely consider it "unrejected". Now, if we take PaV's example of the Blood of St Januarius, normally, the "miraculous" explanation is cast as the null, and a specific scientific hypothesis would be cast as H1. In other words, PaV tells us that if we can't find a scientific hypothesis, we must retain the null. For example, my scientific hypothesis might be that the church in which the vial is prayed for, and in which the liquefaction takes place, is cooler than the bank vault in which it is usually stored. As a result, as the vial is sealed, the dew point will go down in the vial a few hours after it is brought into the church, condensation will form in the vial and liquefy the blood. When it is replaced in the bank fault, the dew point will rise again, and the blood will dry. That's my H1. I can test this scientifically, by manipulating the ambient temperature of the vial, and observing whether liquefaction is temperature-dependent. My null hypothesis is there is no relationship between ambient temperature and liquefaction. I do the experiment: I subject the vial to an environment in which I adjust ambient temperature according to a randomised schedule, and I measure the liquefaction at a regular sampling rate. I then plot liquefaction against temperature. If I observe a clear tendency for liquefaction to be observed at low temperatures, and solidity to be observed at high temperatures, and transition states at intermediate temperatures, then I can "reject the null". However, if my observed data are fairly likely under then null (which we can estimate using an F test, or a t test, for example) then we can "retain the null". And PaV can consider his null not "proven", or "supported", but retained, in the sense that we are still without a non-miraculous explanation. However, ID doesn't work like this, which is its potential strength. In an ID hypothesis, Design (let's leave out miracles for now) is cast as H1, and non-Design as the null (remember we must not exclude a middle). And if a complex pattern is observed, the CSI computation allows us to determine how likely it is that a pattern of that degree of complexity, as one of a subset of patterns with that degree of compressibility, would be observed under the null hypothesis (H0) of non-Design. And if that probability is sufficently low (less than evens, IIRC, to have happened at least once in the entire number of events in the universe), then we can reject the null, H1, of non-Design, and consider Design supported. That is what I was trying to say. I hope that it is now clear. Could you tell me whether or not you consider the above false, and, if so, why? Thanks LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

P: I see your onward clip: truth is, events with a likelihood of one Nope. Truth is that which accurately reports reality, as unlikely or unknown as what actually happens is. Gkairosfocus_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

What fix? next paragraph following quote in OP: "Yet truth is, events with a likelihood of one percent happen all the time in sports. We just don’t always appreciate the randomness. Now if the Isner-Mahut sequel manages to outstrip the original? Then we’d be within our right to suspect that the fix is in."paragwinn_{June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

Joseph: I agree, that in ID, Design is not cast as the null. Mung appears to disagree with both of us. I’d like to know why. Let me show you a better way. :) If I reject that design is the null hypothesis, and I reject that design is the alternative hypothesis, does it then follow that I am being irrational? If not, why not? Elementary, my Dear Lizzie. False Dilemma aka Fallacy of the Excluded Middle cf Law of the Excluded Middle What if it is not the case that "design" must be either the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis? OOPS?
Mung_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

The Complete IDiot's Guide to Design Theory abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef abcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdefabcdef Q1: Design or Not Design?Mung_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Mung, could you explain why you think my assertion is false?
1. It's not where design goes wrong. (Which, admittedly, is just your opinion.) You gave no argument to support it. 2. "It must be a miracle" is not the default choice. The default choice, or null hypothesis, is that it's not a miracle. 3. Design is not the alternate hypothesis. Answer this question, if design is the alternative hypothesis, what is the null hypothesis? See here for an example of the EF: http://conservapedia.com/Explanatory_filter There is no "not design" to which "design" is the alternative hypothesis. I know I've explained that before, perhaps you missed it. I'm pretty sure I explained it to you, I could be mistaken. ID theory cannot tell us if something is not designed. According to you "not design" would be the null or default and "design" would be the alternative. That's not the way ID theory works. We can rule design in, but we cannot rule design out. Do you know why? I think that pretty much covers everything in your statement. Did I miss anything? Please, your killing my blood pressure. Stop already. ;) It's like every other thing you say about ID is mistaken. Why not start over here and at least try to get ID theory right? I'm sure someone, lot's of folks, would be glad to run through an example with you.
When the Explanatory Filter fails to detect design in a thing, can we be sure no intelligent cause underlies it? The answer to this question is No. - William Dembski
Mung_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

No more outing, please!!!!Elizabeth Liddle_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

I think you should find out who he really is. The answer may surprise you...Joseph_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Joseph: I agree, that in ID, Design is not cast as the null. Mung appears to disagree with both of us. I'd like to know why.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

I would say if the lottery were the best two out of three and Cleveland won the first two, there may be something else going on.Joseph_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism. Meaning it is not the null and we do not say science can't explain it therefor design. We say science can explain it and it is designed-> using standard scientific methodology. And the EF requires two things to happen- eliminate chance and necessity and there must be some specification. Otherwise it goes into the heap of "we don't know (yet)".Joseph_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

oops missed a close italic tag. Sorry.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Mung, could you explain why you think my assertion is false? Are you saying that Design, in ID arguments, is not cast as the Alternative Hypothesis to the null? In which case, how do you account for the Explanatory Filter? It is, in effect, expressing the claim that if something cannot be explained with very high bar of probability by Chance and Necessity, we must infer Design? What is the Filter, if not the claim that if observed data are highly improbable under the null we can infer Design? Just as, in the OP, if the observed data are highly improbable under the null of the official draw protocol, the authorities must infer cheating?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0037QGYFYMung_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Of course evolutionists use this type of reasoning themselves when defending common descent. The probability of the same mutation happening in separate species is so low they must have a common ancestor.tragic mishap_{June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply