Mathematics and the Creative Powers of the Blind Watchmaker
|May 16, 2010||Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design|
The burden of proof rests with BW proponents, not ID proponents.
For those with inquisitive minds, I suggest checking out David Berlinski’s comments here, starting at 41 minutes. As everyone with any sense knows, David Berlinski — a mindless, born-again, Christian religious fanatic — is masquerading as a secular Jewish mathematician while attempting to impose a theocracy and destroy the entire foundation of modern science.
I have, on several occasions at UD, proposed that simple mathematical analysis of the available probabilistic resources — even making unrealistically optimistic probabilistic assumptions at every turn — renders totally absurd the claim that the mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection can account for what we find in living systems beyond the utterly trivial.
It took 10^20 reproductive events for malaria to evolve resistance to chloroquine with two randomly produced genetic variations (check out Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution). This is the empirical evidence concerning the creative powers of the Blind Watchmaker. Assuming that humans evolved from a primitive simian-like ancestor three million years ago, and assuming an unrealistically optimistic generation period of 10 years, and assuming an unrealistically optimistic average number of individuals at 10^7, we have 3×10^12 reproductive events for analogous Darwinian mechanisms to turn Lucy into Lucille Ball. That means that with 33 million times fewer random opportunities than malaria had to come up with two point mutations (that produced no new biological machinery or information), Darwinian mechanisms supposedly miraculously engineered modern humans from a pre-chimpanzee ancestor.
This is simply an absurd proposition on its face, completely unsupported by evidence or even the most trivial analytical or probabilistic scrutiny.
This is why, as David Berlinski comments, he and his mathematician friends consider Darwinism to be “nutty.”