To expound on that, here’s an example of how ID studies (supernatural based, as you call it) science works. The following is a William Dembski example that he used in a slightly different context, but it works here. Suppose we have a combination lock with a 0 to 39 numbered dial, and is turned in three alternating directions to be opened. 40X40X40, so the chances are 64,000 to one that it can be opened by someone closing their eyes and turning the dial three times. (that can be comparable to Darwin’s understanding of the simplest forms of life) Contrast that with another, more complex combination lock, it is turned in five different directions to be opened, and the dial is numbered 1 to 99. 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 x 100 — someone closing their eyes and turning that dial 5 times has a 1 in 10 billion chance in opening it the first time. (that could be comparable to what we now understand about the simplest forms of life.)
So this is how ID science works, eh?
By misrepresenting how evolution actually works and beating a strawman about the head and shoulders?
To explain your error we'll use dice. The task is to roll 25 dice and get all sixes.
Your example throws 25 at a time, repeating endlessly, until you get 25 sixes. Don't plan on doing anything else for a few centures.
The way evolution actually works is akin to throwing those 25 dice and then rethrowing only those that are not sixes. You'll be done in a few minutes.
So every time you are tempted to use those impossibly large numbers, ask yourself if those numbers actually apply to the case at hand.
(In a slightly different approach a creationist on another website kept telling us the odds against evolution were 1
720 against. He never did figure out why we were laughing at him.)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
(1)