Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Heywood]

Its not an argument of ignorance. Its a probability argument. Let me explain.

If I have a bag containing three marbles each of which is either white or black what is the probability all the marble are white? To figure this out let W stand for white marble and B stand for black marble. There are four possible configurations

1)W-W-W
2)W-W-B
3)W-B-B
4)B-B-B

Principle of indifference applies here so each has a probability of .25. Now what happens if I randomly draw a marble and it is white? Now the probability that all the marbles are white increases to .33 because configuration 4 is no longer possible. What happens if I draw another marble and it is white? Well the probability that all the marbles in the bag are/were white increases to .5. Everytime a white marble is drawn while no black marbles have been drawn...it increases the likelihood all marbles are white.

I look at Darwinian evolution much the same way. I don't know if it white(the product of an intellect) or black(not the product of intellect). However each time I see an evolutionary system whose origins I know and it turns out that it is the product of an intellect, that in my mind increase the likelihood that all evolutionary systems are the product of intellects.

LOL
You willfully keep looking at man made systems, and then you -surprise- discover that they are all based on an intellect. In your mind that tells you such systems are probably impossible to occur without an intellect? Evidence, you are doing it wrong. Probability? Omg

Are all evolutionary systems the product of an intellect? Is that a valid question or not? Obviously it is a valid question so how do you go about answering it? You start looking at evolutionary systems. Perhaps you can give an example of an evolutionary system whose origins are known but is not the product of an intellect.