If I were a theist, I'd object to it on the grounds that evolution is the best method - god by nature will choose the best method. P(E|T)=1 but his proclivity to choose E isn't a limitation but a sign of his cleverness.
I dont think this is right. They just have to say that there are many possible mechanisms for explaining complex life - those mechanisms don't all have to hold in reality. They're not therefore beholden to the view that its actually easy to create life (the historical method of complex life arising might actually be randomisation, for example. A high probability of randomisation as the method doesn't imply that there's a high probability of life arising).
I reject these kinds of probabilistic arguments, since they're just indicative of our current state of knowledge - depending on which clues we've gleaned, the denominator in our Bayesian calculations can vary enormously. I'd be inclined to adopt them if forced to take a view on some issue, but when it comes to theism (or most philosophical questions) I think there's a trap of feeling confident in ones positions thanks to maths - maths based solely on the limits of our knowledge at any given time.

As another, perhaps clearer illustration of my aversion to this kind of argument. If we take this as true, imagine I now invent a brilliant new methodology of life creation. If what you say here is true, my invention of that has just made atheism less likely as P(E|~T) is now a little smaller.

I agree with this. I realize Zumby is a fan of Bayesian calculations but I find Bayesian calculations unhelpful in terms of philosophy. I am not the most mathematically oriented though, so there is that too.

If we're going to go tangentially back and forth on qualify of evidence, the most resounding evidence for evolution is classical Mendellian genetics and its prediction on the nature of hereditary mechanisms, affirmed by Watson & Crick's seminal research and the discovery of DNA.

It is perhaps one of the most outstanding predictions of science in the last millennia. The only reason we're not awed by it, is because it is outstanding to such a degree that these days the relationship is seen as trivial. And ironically, there is no higher praise in science than that.

I'll do this one first as it's easy. Notice that, despite frequently debating moral philosophy, I don't make Bayesian arguments about morality. If you look moderately closely, I make Bayesian arguments when the subject is about what is likely, or expected, or that X is evidence for Y. That is the proper domain of probability. The problem I have with NotReady (and you by extension) is that he wants to make arguments about what is more likely (i.e. smack dab in the domain of probability) but gets defensive when I show him that his use of probabilistic language does not line up with the math that is supposed to underpin it.

This is fine. Isn't it clear that, if we had hundreds of plausible and well-supported theories for the diversity of life, the ToE would not - in itself - be compelling evidence for atheism? Regardless, I find this sort of objection distasteful. I don't think we should dismiss a highly influential mathematical theorem just because it might, counter-factually, provide a framework in which theism could provide evidence. Start thinking of beliefs as degrees of confidence that can move around.

There is no puzzle - what are you referring to?

Angels put a bit of a spanner in that argument.

But yeah, you can ad hoc your way out of anything, if that's your bag.

A hypothetical theist might say this, but IRL theists don't, so I don't know if this is worth following through. Remember that my original complaint here was the tension that exists when a theist holds both that the non-existence of a mechanism supports theism, but the existence of a mechanism does not correspondingly reduce support for theism. Inventing new theists is kinda distracting.


Probability IS just states of knowledge. If I flip a coin and ask you to tell me the probability that it lands heads you will say it's 50/50. But if I make a robot that can look at a coin before it is flipped, crunch some numbers and predict heads or tails with 80% accuracy... what is the REAL probability? The is no REAL probability - probability is a property of our minds (specifically our knowledge/ignorance) not an intrinsic property of the coin or coin-flip.

(For those of a deterministic bent, given only one possible future, what is the probability that the next coin I flip is heads?)

Neo-Darwinism is mutation+natural selection=macroevolution.

Nothing is proven 100% by finite, timebound, sinful man.

even in QM?

Not my field, but to my limited knowledge, it depends somewhat on which interpretation of QM you go with.

cool, I just asked because I've been reading about Quantum Bayesianism recently and so far haven't been able to make much sense of it as an interpretation.

What is old-Darwinism?

As I understand it, there is a genuine problem with explaining the diversification we see using the processes we know about in the timescales available.

As I said - I havent heard that used to suggest that "evolution" is wrong, but more likely that there are other currently unknown processes at work which generate large-scale changes more rapidly than current models predict (epigenetics and the recent about-face on "junk" DNA, as a couple of examples).

The guy who explained it to me (who is a geneticist, but was dumbing it down) essentially said that the trouble with this 'big picture stuff' is that it's difficult to research and not terribly interesting. The only people who are really keen about it are the people looking to deny evolution.

It's similar to how scientific research on speciation is not terribly active (in comparison to other areas). The people able to do the research arent really interested in proving it happens, since it so obviously does. Go to a creationist website though and there's not really talk of anything else.

A point of genuine difference between us.

The sum of the first n odd numbers is n-squared. Cool fact and 100% proven.

I would have said this, I suspect - not sure you were here when I was advancing my own peculiar take on theism.

My first comment was that you made a good point though - I agree that you can't have your cake and eat it too. The follow up was more about probabilistic arguments in metaphysics.
Yeah, I agree completely. This is why I think it's a poor argument when the question we're looking to answer is "What is the truth?" rather than "What is our best guess?" I think probability has its place, but not in metaphysics. As I said, I think there's a seductive tinge in that anything with numbers and calculations behind it appears to be more rigorous or certain. Ultimately a probabilistic argument that A is more likely than B might just stem from evidence for A being easier to find (or even just easier to think of).

Not really advancing a cause here - just stating my position. For future reference, I guess.

I don't think the problem, if there is one, is in the use of mathematics to model probabilities.

The idea that P(E|T) < P(E|~T) seems debatable to me, but it's not a question of the math. The assumptions involved about what theism entails are the problematic parts

I feel like this argument is dubious in the same way the fine tuning argument is dubious as an argument for design. It's not clear to me that the space of possible life-giving processes is infinite or nearly so. It's not clear that the space is one of a priori logical possibility. As far as whether theists would be willing to limit God's options, there are at least a few different ways Christian theology has understood what omnipotence entails, and besides that it's not clear that that the hebrew El Shaddai or the greek Pantokrator were originally understood as omnipotence in the modern sense.

I think what I would say is that zumby is right that the truth of evolution and a lot modern scientific knowledge decreases P(T) for a pretty broad range of ideas from traditional monotheistic theology. Where I disagree is that he says it doesn't matter if there are other theologies because actual theists don't hold them. I think that dismisses the topic too easily for a couple of reasons:

1) There is more to theology than just the western Christian tradition, both in terms of other theological ideas within Christianity but also in other cultures and religions.

2) Theology doesn't have to be static, and never really has been. We can reject certain theological ideas without rejecting theism. It is (imo) a valid criticism of much of modern Christianity that it has tried too hard to defend the philosophical and theological ideas of the past rather than tackling some of these problems more open-mindedly, but it's not necessary that it always remain so, and I doubt that it will remain so.

I disagree quite strongly. The fossil record all fits precisely what we'd expect to find if evolution is true.

When creationists ask why so much is missing, the answer is because fossils are rare. But this is stating why the fossil record isn't even stronger and not why it is weak.

The fossil record also sets up very easy standards for disproof of evolution. Find me a pre-cambrian rabbit.

We know rabbits came from somewhere. And we don't find them before a certain point. What you call "macroevolution" therefore very much explains the appearance of rabbits only after that certain point.

Now you can replace rabbits with any of a vast number of modern species. And you only need to present one.

Find me all the pre-cambrian transitional fossils that led to the cambrian explosion, not to mention all the other explosions.

Is this a joke?

My criticism was directed at NotReady's beliefs, not bunny's former beliefs.

Who is talking about The Truth or metaphysics here? My point is that questions of whether something is likely or unlikely are probabilistic and need to be justified by probability theory. Imagine this conversation between two friends:

Fiver: There are more republicans in the senate than democrats.
Keehar: Wait a minute, I've got the figures here and there are 53 democrats and 47 republicans. 53 > 47, so you are wrong.
Fiver: Ah, but you see, this is a political matter, not a mathematical matter. I've very skeptical about applying mathematics to questions of politics. For sure, deciding whether there are more republicans or democrats by mathematics might make us feel more secure in our assertions, but political truth is complex. The claim that the are more republicans than democrats is just a political claim, not a mathematical claim.
Keehar: Oh you.

Similarly, just because something is about god doesn't mean it's metaphysical. There ARE metaphysical arguments for the existence of god, but some arguments for the existence of god a) put god in the role of a scientific theory... explaining some set of observations... and therefore are empirical in nature b) appeal to god being more likely to explain some observations.. and therefore have a probabilistic component that can be evaluated using math.

Take these two problems together, it kinda seems like you are saying that "if you were addressing a different kind of theism, and addressing a different type issue, then your argument wouldn't work". Sure, but who cares?

What theism entails, when I'm addressing NotReady, is the particular theism that he/WLC/Alvin Plantinga subscribe to. For a trivial counter-example, I don't think that dereds 'theism' is touched by this argument.

There isn't.

There's so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start. First off, yes there are processes identified in the last few decades that can 'speed up' evolution. But these aren't 'unknown processes'. A contemporary evo 101 course will include PE, epigenetics etc. And none of this even remotely supports the argument that there is not enough time, but quite the opposite... as you said, these processes allow for 'quicker' evolution! Creationists claim that there was not enough time for evolution.. how you think that processes that explain 'fast' evolution are in any (however small) way helpful to this argument completely baffles me.

No serious scientist thinks there was not enough time. It's just not an issue, and hasn't been for over a hundred years.

OK

Well I agree that no-one is trying to work out if speciation happens because LDO, but it's an active area of research in general. A quick search on Mendeley (which is far from exhaustive) throws up nearly a thousand papers on speciation published since 2013. For comparison, there were half as many papers published on epigenetics in the same time period.

I'd suggest understanding it first, before dismissing it. Granted I'm not terribly clear when i post, but I'm no fool.
I don't. I was pointing out some (comparatively recent) examples where our understanding of evolution had broadened beyond "random mutations happen and some are advantageous". My claim (parroted, not researched) was that there used to be a big puzzle and that these recent advances have helped explain it.

Nonetheless, the processes we are currently aware of are still insufficient. The conclusion being we don't fully understand them or there are some we haven't discovered yet.
That's why I made the comment "As I said - I havent heard that used to suggest that "evolution" is wrong".

"A hypothetical theist might say this, but IRL theists don't, so I don't know if this is worth following through"

Sounded more general than just NotReady, but okay. I think it's a fair criticism of NotReady's position.