Soracilla writes:
I could do a general reply to all of you, but Ned brough up the question of what I believed so it'd be best as a reply here. I would call myself an Evidentialist Creationist, that is, I believe in Creationism simply because I cannot see how Evolution is more probable scientifically than Creationism, since naturally science can only conclude on probabilities. I just cannot comprehend the plauibility of the Evolutionist point of view, not because I assume Creationism blindly, but because after looking at both sides of the discussion, Creationism just ends up working.
Of course it works. The universe could have been created just this second, made to look 13.7 billion years old, with our memories of having lived for years being part of that creation. You can't use anything in the universe as evidence that this is false, as all the evidence in the universe has been faked.
Works perfectly. Accounts for everything.
And adding an intelligence into the mix, giving it the goal of a specific result, and having it act to achieve that goal, always increases the probability of that result occurring.
Take the CT Lotto, for example. On March 8th, the numbers that came up were 17-22-26-35-38-40. The odds of those numbers coming up in any order is 1 in 7.1 million. However, if you add in an intelligence with the goal of having those numbers come up, and it acts to achieve that goal -- rigging the Lotto; that does vastly increase the probability that those numbers will come up.
However, the question is,
should you be saying that the Lotto was rigged?