Bayesian inference and the teleological argument

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

And here we have @swamidass making the very same plea SIX (6) years ago … that I make today.

@swamidass

Continuing the discussion from Bill Cole’s Case For Design 1:

An important point came up that deserves its own thread with all those here who have been posting ID arguments or trying to argue against common descent (@colewd, @anon46279830, @Nonlin.org, @Ashwin_s).

This is particularly relevant to those posting mathematical arguments, or are engaging questions already answered with mathematical arguments.

Let’s step back and see the big picture.

Biology is non intuitive. Probability is non intuitive. Mathematical biology is doubly non-intuitive.

The ID movement has leaders that are putting forward a host of mathematical biology arguments, all of which (except 1 in population genetics) have been rejected by almost every mathematician, biologist and computational biologist on earth, including Christians like myself.

You guys are not adding anything to these arguments at all, except revealing a lot of confusion we wouldn’t expect from one of the principals.

Even if you were to convince @T_aquaticus and myself (or any of the other scientists here), even if you are right, this will do nothing to change the gridlock ID faces in science.

So what is a rational goal in this situation?

ooo

… I’m not interested in arguing about [ID] endlessly…

In the end you don’t have to agree with us, but let’s at least choose to use our time productively.

Gentlemen,

When someone no longer complains, do you really think it is because there is nothing left to complain about?

Or is it because he or she is so battered by the varied forces arrayed against any progress, the brow is too bruised to be raised up again?