# Explaining the Cancer Information Calculation

**URL:** https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/explaining-the-cancer-information-calculation/1932
**Category:** Conversation
**Created:** [September 27, 2018, 5:52am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/explaining-the-cancer-information-calculation/1932 "2018-09-27T05:52:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 48

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)
#### Post date: [June 10, 2020, 7:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/explaining-the-cancer-information-calculation/1932/48 "2020-06-10T19:47:22Z")

</div>

> [@ETVB](#):
>
> In his book, **The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design** , Dr. William Dembski estimates a “Universal Probability Bound”. He argues that we can calculate the total probabilistic resources available in the universe by …

This argument is often brought up, so I’ll offer the short version of the rebuttal. If you name a specific event which has a probability on the order of 10^-150 and then sit around waiting for it to happen, I agree you will never see it. _That doesn’t not mean events of this magnitude never happen._ They are happening all around us all the time, but no one predicted them, and most are not particularly notable, so they pass unnoticed.

If we apply Dembski’s methods to common occurences, and take into account the entire event history leading up to the occurence, the probability of any event will exceed the “Universal Probability Bound”. It’s just a matter of taking a sufficiently long and detailed history into account until the multiplicative probability is close to zero. If I wished, I could show the impossibility of my having cantaloupe for breakfast this morning this way (but I did!)

> [@ETVB](#):
>
> Can you clarify the point you are trying to make there? Are you just saying it is possible life formed naturally, no matter how improbable?

I am NOT saying anything about the possibility of life forming naturally. I think most will agree that something unlikely must have occurred. What I am saying is that Dembski makes a bad argument for ID, and bad arguments help no one.

> [@ETVB](#):
>
> To summarize my position: I am skeptical that naturalistic mechanisms are in principle capable of constructing new body plans (phyla), new complex systems within multi-cellular organisms (for example a digestive system), or the origin of life.

This is not an unreasonable position in itself. I don’t agree, but that’s OK. 🙂

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/explaining-the-cancer-information-calculation/1932)._