Here’s a critique of the mathematics of the design inference from an assistant professor of religious studies. The combination of ignorance and arrogance on the part of this individual is staggering. Compare here with the following:
YouÃ‚Â¹re probably referring to the pseudo-mathematical posturings of William Dembski. Dembski is a fraud whom nobody should take seriously. HereÃ‚Â¹s why: DembskiÃ‚Â¹s model of Ã‚Â³specified complexityÃ‚Â² assumes that when attempting to determine the likelihood of a given pattern coming about randomly, that you have the pattern in mind from the outset. In other words, that evolution is a teleological process. But evolution is NOT teleological. It is not more unlikely, from a mathematical perspective, that, say, an eye should develop from a process of natural selection than that some other arbitrary result should take place. ItÃ‚Â¹s only mathematically unlikely because you are separating this singular event (i.e., the one that took place), from the billions of other equally singular events that COULD have taken place, but didnÃ‚Â¹t. Those events were equally unlikely. PROSPECTIVELY, any one of them could have occurred. ItÃ‚Â¹s only RETROSPECTIVELY that we look at the one that did and say itÃ‚Â¹s unlikely. . . .
Scott Paeth, PhD.
Assistant Professor of Religious Studies
SOURCE: go here.