swamidass
November 22, 2018, 2:53am
225
Mung:
Neil stated that “everything that happens is wildly improbable.” Apparently we should not be at all surprised if the evolution of the eye is wildly improbable. And of course, we are not surprised at all that the evolution of the eye is wildly improbable.
So even if the evolution of the eye is wildly improbable, we don’t have reason to doubt that it actually took place because, you know, wildly improbable stuff happens all the time.
It does not of course follow that the sequence of wildly improbable events that took place in order for the eye to evolve is anything other than a sequence of wildly improbable events multiplied by the probability of each independent event.
Neil invites us to believe that miracles happen all the time. Who can say otherwise. But that’s not science.
The astute will notice a strong similarity between probability arguments against Evolution and some probability arguments against the Resurrection (Torley on The Resurrection: Take Two - #30 by dga471 ). Anyone else notice this?
2 Likes