Deinonychus antirrhopus

I hate to point this out after you after you've already gone to so much trouble, but you've completely misread my post. And you're misunderstanding has lead you to knock down a strawman. For starters...

Then based on all this Joe cranks out that the probability that God exists is 91%, implying a 9% chance that the world and universe are the result of natural processes.

Um, no. The post wasn't about the probability that God exist. In fact, I made it rather clear what it is about. Did you miss the line that read: "...I find that there is a 9% probability that the data supports the claim that human beings are the result of natural undirected causes and a 91% probability that it does not."

So what is wrong with this? First, the God Hypothesis does not have to be mutually exclusive with some of the events that Joe mentions.

You're right. And if you read the post again you'll notice that I never claimed it did.

Joe Carter has whole heartedly embraced Dembski's explanatory filter in other of his arguments for why God exists and evolutionary theory is insufficient to explain the existence of even something as simple as a 100 protein amino acid.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't recall embracing Dembski's explanatory filter "whole heartedly" much less doing so in a post arguing for the existence of God. Are you sure you have the right blogger? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

The problem here is that Dembski's explanatory filter is a classical or frequentist statistical concept...not a Bayesian one. Hence, Joe Carter literally doesn't know whether he is coming or going with regards to his statistical philosophy.

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. I never mentioned Dembski or his explanatory filter in the post on Bayes. Where in the world did you get the idea that I was confusing the two?

Think of it this way, here we have a God that has to keep monkeying around with his creation. He can't "write really good code" and then run the "program". No, we have an idiot God that has to keep tweaking things.

Again, you're knocking down a strawman. I not only never said such a thing but it is the complete opposite of what I think. I think that there is likely a biotic law that is both both teleological and detectable by an inference from design. It's a false dichtomy to claim that either natural selection is the sole mecahnism for evolution or we must claim that "God is tweaking things."

I really can't believe you wasted so much time writing a rebuttal to things I've never written. Didn't you go back and check what I wrote while you were writing this post?

I suppose that since you couldn't defend the fact that there is a paucity of evidence for non-telological explanations you decided to knock down strawmen instead. Instead of working so hard to deny the evidence, why not just follow where it leads (as Anthony Flew did)?

Um, no. The post wasn't about the probability that God exist. In fact, I made it rather clear what it is about. Did you miss the line that read: "...I find that there is a 9% probability that the data supports the claim that human beings are the result of natural undirected causes and a 91% probability that it does not."

Yes, but the problem still remains that neither is undirected. If God works in a way that totally appears to our limite view point as if man was created via natural means, it is still directed. If God is incompetent and leaves evidence all over the place of his existence/direction then it is still directed. Your conclusion is still incoherent.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't recall embracing Dembski's explanatory filter "whole heartedly" much less doing so in a post arguing for the existence of God. Are you sure you have the right blogger? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

I know you don't Joe. There are philosophical differences as to how inferences should be made in a statistical sense. Broadly speaking there is the frequentist/classical and the conditional/Bayesian. The two are, generally speaking, not compatible as they take rather different views of things like probability and what exatly is being estimated.

And please stop playing word games here. The whole point of Dembski's filter is to detect the presence of design and hence imply the existence of a designer. It is also clear you think the designer is God. Therefore, it logically follows you see Dembski's filter as a method of proving the existence of God (as does Dembski).

The fact that you don't understand the differences between the Bayesian method and Dembski's method highlights that you are not being coherent in your view of statistical inference.

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. I never mentioned Dembski or his explanatory filter in the post on Bayes. Where in the world did you get the idea that I was confusing the two?

Statistics isn't just a great big grab bag of things you take that you like and reject when you don't like. If you are going to use the Bayesian method of inference it means you should have major methodoligical issues with Dembski's filter and otehr things he has written. And the problem is reversed if you accept Dembski's methods, but then want to use Bayesian methods. They. Are. Not. Compatible.

Again, you're knocking down a strawman. I not only never said such a thing but it is the complete opposite of what I think. I think that there is likely a biotic law that is both both teleological and detectable by an inference from design. It's a false dichtomy to claim that either natural selection is the sole mecahnism for evolution or we must claim that "God is tweaking things."

Oh please, this is the whole crux of the biological design hypothesis. That certain things cannot happen naturally (or even by what appears as a natural process) but has to be the result of direct intervention. That is basically "tweaking things". Your God is incompetent. This is why Intelligent Design is bad theology, IMO.

I really can't believe you wasted so much time writing a rebuttal to things I've never written. Didn't you go back and check what I wrote while you were writing this post?

Coming from somebody who doesn't understand the difference between Bayesian and Classical inference you'll have to pardon me if I consider this to also be incoherent.

I know you don't Joe. There are philosophical differences as to how inferences should be made in a statistical sense. Broadly speaking there is the frequentist/classical and the conditional/Bayesian. The two are, generally speaking, not compatible as they take rather different views of things like probability and what exatly is being estimated.

Since I responded to this at my own blog, I won’t rehash it here. It appears that you seem to think that using probability frameworks is an either/or position, similar to being a Democrat or a Republican, and that you must choose one or the other for every case. I’m not sure where you got this idea but it appears to be the core of your strawman.

Therefore, it logically follows you see Dembski's filter as a method of proving the existence of God (as does Dembski).

Your grasp of logic appears to be as weak as your grasp of statistical methods. No, detecting design does not prove the existence of God. In fact, as Dembski himself notes, detecting design does not even prove the existence of a designer.

The fact that you don't understand the differences between the Bayesian method and Dembski's method highlights that you are not being coherent in your view of statistical inference.

Since you keep making stuff up, perhaps its time I call you on it. Please point out for me where I have used the Bayesian method as an explanatory filter. This is about the third time you’ve made that assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Statistics isn't just a great big grab bag of things you take that you like and reject when you don't like. If you are going to use the Bayesian method of inference it means you should have major methodoligical issues with Dembski's filter and otehr things he has written. And the problem is reversed if you accept Dembski's methods, but then want to use Bayesian methods. They. Are. Not. Compatible.

You don’t really understand the difference between when frequentist and Bayesian methods apply, do you? I think that is the crux of the problem and the reason you completely misunderstand this whole argument.

Oh please, this is the whole crux of the biological design hypothesis. That certain things cannot happen naturally (or even by what appears as a natural process) but has to be the result of direct intervention.

I’m not sure why I even bother arguing with you since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The crux of the biological design hypothesis is that design can potentially be detected in nature. If it happens in nature it is a natural process, therefore design would also be a natural process.

That is basically "tweaking things". Your God is incompetent. This is why Intelligent Design is bad theology, IMO.

Okay, Steve, you just keep knocking down the strawmen if it makes you feel better. I think my time would be better spent arguing with someone who has a basic understanding of the concepts involved.

Since I responded to this at my own blog, I won’t rehash it here. It appears that you seem to think that using probability frameworks is an either/or position, similar to being a Democrat or a Republican, and that you must choose one or the other for every case. I’m not sure where you got this idea but it appears to be the core of your strawman.

Yes, it largely is an either or proposition. You either think that whatever you are trying to estimate has a probability distribution attached to it or you don't. Just because being Democrat/Republican doesn't entail either/or choices on all policy issues, doesn't mean the Bayesian/Frequentist issue isn't either/or.

Your grasp of logic appears to be as weak as your grasp of statistical methods. No, detecting design does not prove the existence of God. In fact, as Dembski himself notes, detecting design does not even prove the existence of a designer.

Dude, you don't even know what I'm talking about when it comes to statistics, and yet you think you can tell me about statistics?

As for Dembski and his filter, the whole point is that it rules out all other explanations save design. This implies a designer. Q.E.D.

Since you keep making stuff up, perhaps its time I call you on it. Please point out for me where I have used the Bayesian method as an explanatory filter. This is about the third time you’ve made that assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up.

I think it is well past time for you to stop lecturing me on reading comprehension and work on your own. I never, ever said you used the Bayesian method as an "explanatory filter". What I have argued is that you use both

1. The Bayesian/Conditional approach,
2. The Frequentist/Dembski approach.

These are diametrically opposed viewpoints. This is like saying you favor government ownership of the means of production and free markets.

You don’t really understand the difference between when frequentist and Bayesian methods apply, do you? I think that is the crux of the problem and the reason you completely misunderstand this whole argument.

This is amusing, I'm going to get a lecture on when to use Bayesian methods? It isn't a question of when to use them. Theoretically one can use Bayesian methods pretty much whenver one uses Frequentist methods. There are differences in how estimators are calculated, and there are other issues depending on the context, such as with nonparametric methods. The problem is philosophical. You can't mix-and-match the two philosophies as they are incompatible and when you do mix-and-match you get incoherent results.

The crux of the biological design hypothesis is that design can potentially be detected in nature. If it happens in nature it is a natural process, therefore design would also be a natural process.

Well, congratulations on moving the goal posts to such an extent to render the question completely moot. Congratulations, even if you lose, you win.