Re: [asa] Explanatory filter

I didn't say impossible. I said improbable. Shall we run the numbers? I'm pretty sure I'd win.

Don't be too offended: I count myself as an evangelical. But evangelical use of the frontal cortex is startlingly rare. Providing counterexamples is no more effective than showing a video of bat standing up by itself.

But let's get to the more important point you raised in the previous post. You write: "The issue is what we can infer as *likely* from what we actually know." But then you extend the question into the past with regard to common descent, and you seem to imply that we're flying blind when considering probabilities and plausibilities with regard to evolutionary change. I thing you've overstated the case a bit, especially in the context of the magic bat, and I would add two comments which might help illustrate why I find ID claims in this area to be so disreputable.

First, what we actually know is that biological evolution occurs, that it can occur with astonishing rapidity, and that the genetic diversity it surely requires is abundant and ubiquitous. Indeed, measurements of evolutionary rates in various well-known field experiments have concluded that these rates can vastly exceed the rates inferred by examination of the fossil record. We *know* that evolutionary change happens. To baseball: not only we do we know that bats *can* stand on end, we know how such an event can come about. Similarly, not only do we know that evolutionary processes *can* generate novelty, we know a fair amount about how such events can come about. This is why I think Randy's pointer to this wonderful little clip is a very cool object lesson.

Second, I find both irony and dangerous folly in the quantification of ignorance. Dembski & Behe are banking on calculations that seem to me to be wholly based on ignorance. We don't actually know how likely it is that a particular mutation will come about. (In fact, the most recent estimates of beneficial mutation rates in bacteria indicate that they are 1000X more likely than previously inferred.) We don't actually know (yet) how likely a particular developmental transformation really is. The bat on end isn't interesting because it was videotaped; it's interesting because we have a fair idea of how likely the phenomenon is, and we could test it if we wanted to. When it comes to particular evolutionary transitions (at whatever level), we don't know which are more likely than others. We don't know which bats have a concave end, which are perfectly balanced, which might even have adhesive and weights added to make their standing as inevitable as a kid's toy weeble.*

The bat thing is cool, because it helps us see how people's quick responses can be so very wrong, even when confidently delivered. I think Dick was probably misled more by his astonishment at a first-pass examination of the phenomenon than he was by an (apparent) ignorance of the basics of the broadcasting of baseball. The event was so plainly implausible to him that he concocted a story that we know to be wildly implausible, well-nigh impossible. I infer that he was completely certain, on a first examination, of the impossibility of the event, and so his story seemed better by comparison. I'll wager that now that he knows a bit more about the event (i.e., that the bat has a concavity in its end, and that the recording itself is unremarkable) he will completely alter his view, perhaps even *see* the video differently, and conclude that there is no human or demonic monkey business involved at all. That's the kind of fate I wish for ID apologetics: that people would be ab!
 le to see that a more careful examination of a scene can reveal aspects previously unnoticed, and overturn hastily-formed judgments that were sometimes planted by unscrupulous apologists.

Steve Matheson

*A weeble, for those under the age of 30 or so, was a toy doll for very young children that was shaped roughly like a bowling pin and weighted so that it could not fall over. "Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down."
 
>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 05/26/08 10:42 PM >>>
Steve said: Personally, I think it's just an improbable event, sort of like
an evangelical employing critical thought

I respond: Geesh -- I find gratitous comments like this so annoying. What
"evangelicals" have you been reading? Is NT Wright "evangelical?" Anthony
Thistleton? Roger Olson? Scot McKnight? Jamie Smith?

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> The batter was Martin Prado of the Atlanta Braves. The improbable event
> occurred in a game with the Mets in September of 2007. Discussion at the
> time centered on neither peculiar camera angles nor invisible strings, but
> on whether Prado's bat was oddly weighted. Personally, I think it's just an
> improbable event, sort of like an evangelical employing critical thought.
> I've ruled out chicanery, at least because that really is Keith Hernandez'
> voice.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart%C3%ADn_Prado
>
> Steve Matheson
>
> >>> "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net> 05/25/08 10:13 PM >>>
> How would we apply the explanatory filter to this video? Can we determine
> by probabilities whether it was edited? Or designed?
>
> http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1775904
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.