Mark Frank writes in a comment to a prior post:
When reconstructing an evolutionary past I would say that scientists are doing two things which correspond to my Bayesian analysis:
They are proposing explanations that
1) might well have happened – the prior probability is acceptable
2) would have a good chance of producing what we observe – the likelihood is acceptable
When reconstructing a biological past I would say that ID scientists are doing two things which correspond to Mark Frank’s Bayesian analysis:
They are proposing explanations that
1) might well have happened – the prior probability is acceptable
2) would have a good chance of producing what we observe – the likelihood is acceptable
Mark Frank, do you agree that ID proponents and Darwinian researchers are employing identical modes of reasoning?