From welsberr Sat Oct 28 02:24:41 2000 Received: (from welsberr@localhost) by inia.cls.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e9S7Ofa07541; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 02:24:41 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 02:24:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "Wesley R. Elsberry" Message-Id: <200010280724.e9S7Ofa07541@inia.cls.org> To: William_Dembski@baylor.edu Subject: Information request re: Dawkins and conservative allocation of luck Cc: welsberr [Quote] Dawkins is right. We can allow our scientific theorizing only so much luck. After that we degenerate into handwaving and mystery. A probability bound of 10^-150, or a corresponding complexity bound of 500 bits of information, sets a conservative limit on the amount of luck we can allow ourselves (certainly more conservative than the one Dawkins proposes here). Such a limitation on luck is crucial to the integrity of science. If we allow ourselves too many "wildcard" bits of information, we can explain anything. [End Quote - WA Dembski, "Intelligent Design", p.167] The upper limit that Dawkins imposes is based upon an estimate of the number of planets in the universe. "1 in 100 billion billion" translates into scientific notation as 1E-20. Dawkins, in fact, introduced the number in scientific notation and then gave the "100 billion billion" translation from that. Under common usage of "conservative", Dawkins is being far more conservative in allowing a mere 1E-20 probability bound than you are in allowing a 1E-150 probability bound. Dawkins' limit on the number of bits we can allow ourselves is thus about 66, in contrast with your allocation of up to 500 bits. By the text above, increasing the number of bits allowed is becoming more liberal, not more conservative. How is the statement that Dawkins is being less conservative in his probability bound estimate justified? Wesley cc: Reiterations Meta-List, reiterations@meta-list.org