Comment by Kaizyn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kaizyn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I believe that ID gets unfairly maligned. As a scientific theory it is a basic statement about probabilities. Simply stated: the probability that life could have evolved to its current state by way of Darwinian evolution is so low as to be a nearly a mathematical impossibility. (Simply calculate the probability that each of the necessary factors for intelligent human life came to exist and multiply these numbers together. You arrive at an extremely small number, less even than 1 in 10^60.) This statement allows that the universe has an infinite time frame for such evolution to have occurred. ID also points out that recent astronomical findings date the universe to about 14 billion years old, thus significantly curtailing the theoretical maximum time allowable for that evolution to occur in. Now tell me, what makes that claim pseudo-scientific?

You are wrong. Study evolution before telling me it is astronomically improbable. This debate only ends up giving Intelligent Design mindshare that it does not deserve. I hope you haven't actually fallen for the tricks of the Insane Fundamentalists.

To everyone else: there is absolutely no need to entertain Intelligent Design trolls.

You're right that it's a stupid debate that doesn't belong here, but all the down-modding and vitriol smacks a little too much of a tyranny of the (correct) majority.

To the poster, you're not going to find any funders here, but there are probably some groups elsewhere interested in funding people to put together a case for ID. Your best bet is probably working through an evangelical school like Liberty University.

What makes that claim pseudo-science is that it demonstrates a total ignorance of probability and has been debunked many times. http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/08/big_numbers_bad_ant... For one such example.

> I believe that ID gets unfairly maligned.

Yeah, those nasty mean judges.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com