-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Ruest [mailto:pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 2:43 PM
To: Howard J. Van Till
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Response to: What does the creation lack?
"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
>
> >From: Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
>
> > Are you implying that life and all biological funtionalities emerged
> > exclusively by chance (scientifically speaking)?
>
> Peter, suppose that you observed a perfectly honest gambling casino --
> all games used a form of randomness honestly, no cheating, and no
> "hidden choices" being exercised by the dealers.
> After considerable study you note a pattern: at the end of each day,
> the management goes to the bank with a substantial profit. Question:
> would you say that this outcome occured "exclusively by chance"?
> I have a feeling that my answer to your question would be similar to
> your answer to my question.
I am not sure what answer is being assumed, but I would say that the exact
take each day would be established "by chance," in the scenario described.
However, the games are designed so that "on average" the house should make a
certain percentage of all transaction, either by "owning" a portion of a
wheel, or instructing when the dealer is to "hold", etc. But the exact
yield depends on the luck, or lack thereof, of the patrons.
The problem I have with some discussions of the probability of abiogenesis
is that when some stats are thrown around concerning the infinitesimal
chance it occur randomly, the two strongest arguments that appear to support
it seem to be...
1. Even in an honest sweepstakes where the odds of winning appear only
slightly better if you participate rather than not, there IS always a
winner. We exist, so the odds were not so unfavorable, or insurmountable,
as some suggest, and
2. Physics/chemistry/biology is not a crap shoot. There are some
deterministic mechanisms going on which affect the outcome.
But I find these arguments unconvincing...
The reasoning of 1 seems rather circular. We stand outside the
above-mentioned casino, and see a near-penniless patron enter. A while
later, he comes out with a zillion dollars. We nod to one another, saying
that the system is honest, that while there is a zillion (minus one) losers,
there is at least one winner.
What we didn't see was the patron wasn't happy with the odds, so, instead of
gambling with his assets, he bought a weapon, and stole the money.
Likewise, trying to suggest that naturalistic abiogenesis to be a viable (no
pun int... nah, pun intended) mechanism by which life appeared solely by its
assumed results is not valid.
And I find 2 not very convincing. Abiogenesis seems to me as having a less
chance of occurring that the miraculous jumbo jet in the hurricane, not
necessarily because of the complexity, which is certainly a factor, but the
time factor. In contrast to the opinions of naturalism advocates and the
Rolling Stones, "time is...(not)... on (their) side."
Aging is a process that occurs on all materials of which I am aware, and
just as components of a jumbo jet would be piles of dust if its creation
took a long period of time, so would the relatively complex components of
living organisms. After all, if the synthesis of some of these components
were so "deterministic" in the long run, we could reasonably expect to
achieve physical immortality.
Or, to return to the casino analogy, one could expect to "break the house"
by just playing over and over again. The problem is that to do this, you
have to invest a sizable portion of your assets each play, until you have
nothing left to invest.
But I really just wanted to wish everyone here a safe and contemplative
holiday. I will be out for the weekend, and expect to see ample evidence
that I am not really aware of the "big picture."
Till then,
Cheers,
Norm Woodward
Robins AFB, GA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 16:43:07 EST