(October 10, 2013 at 7:20 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:(October 10, 2013 at 6:42 am)Lion IRC Wrote: How does the group that says...we don't know,
serve us better than the group which says...we think we DO know.
You're seriously asking that question?
We don't know what causes X so we're going to assume that it was Y, regardless of the evidence to back that up? Saying "I don't know" is the first step to intelletual integrity.
Please don't tell me you actually espouse that position, Lion. You seem like a pretty smart guy, in all honesty.
The null hypothesis is not always we do not know.
Life forms with vast complexity exist. They came into being somehow.
The vast complexity of life means someone with vast intelligence and power created life, aka God the Creator. That is very much in keeping with scientific observation of intelligent design.
So the null hypothesis, H0, is that God created all things.
Your hypothesis, H1, is that the vast complexity of life came into being without intelligence, a very radical theory since there is no evidence for it.
P(H1) = 0 or approximately 0 based on simple statistics.
