Why Repeat After Me? Figure it out for yourself!
A few days ago, one of my readers left a comment that referred me to a blog called "GoodMath where one more liberal evolutionist had written a post attempting to debunk another one of Dembski's speculations. Of course, the speculation of Dembski was in no way related to my personal beliefs, but that didn't stop the reader! Rather than try and defend Dembski, I pointed the reader - and the author of GoodMath - to one of my posts that starts from the ground up in explaining a particular piece of scientific evidence that supports the idea of a Creator - namely, the formation of life. The post uses only mathematics, common sense, and data from the secular Nature magazine. Trying to be fair, I also left a comment on the GoodMath site referencing my post - in case he wanted to try and debunk it. Which he promptly tried to do. My initial argument was pretty simple: the odds for the formation of the simplest possible reproducing, living cell (from the Nature article) by random chance are greater than the most improbable set of odds in this universe. By definition it is therefore impossible for the simplest possible reproducing, living cell to arise by random chance. His "rebuttal" was this: typing a random string of keys and calculating the odds of getting that particular result. Even though the odds are greater than 1 in 1080, it still happened, right? I wonder what is wrong here. . . . I already have a pretty good idea what the matter is with this obviously flawed argument. Care to guess? In Him, David S. MacMillan III