> So the Bible tells us that we should expect the supernatural to
>be rare and to appear as the natural in most cases. How convenient
>for Christians. Is there some other way to test Biblical statements
>about the supernatural?
>
> There may be. The Bible says, ". . . but they became futile in
>their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened." (Romans
>1:21) So we might expect evolutionists to be confused about the
>probability associated with events claimed by the Bible to be
>supernatural in origin. Is there any evidence of this? Consider the
>following two cases:
>
> In his book **The Blind Watchmaker**, Richard Dawkins tries
>to explain that the improbable origin of life scenarios he has discussed
are actually perfectly reasonable:
>
> If on some planet there are beings with a lifetime of a million
> centuries, their spotlight of comprehensible risk will extend
> that much farther towards the right-hand end of the continuum.
> They will expect to be dealt a perfect bridge hand from time to
> time, and will scarcely trouble to write home about it when it
> happens. (p. 162)
>
>Earlier, Dawkins gave the probability associated with a perfect deal at
>bridge:
>
> Moving towards the right-hand end of the spectrum, another
> landmark point is the probability of a perfect deal in bridge,
> where each of the four players receives a complete suite of
> cards. The odds against this happening are
> 2,235,197,406,895,366,368,301,559,999 to 1. (p.161)
I think that you may have made an error in assuming that Dawkins was talking
about the same "bridge" event on page 162 as he was on page 161.
There is a vast difference in probability between a perfect DEAL of bridge
(all four players receiving 13 cards of one suite) that Dawkins refers to on
page 161, and a perfect HAND of bridge (one player being dealt 13 cards of
one suite. It is this second occurrence that Dawkins refers to on page 162.
The probability against one player receiving a perfect bridge hand is
approximately 251,963,120,000 to 1, some 9 x 10**15 times MORE probable than
a perfect DEAL!
> Now if Dawkins 100 million year-old alien (10**8 years) was
>playing bridge with three of his long-lived buddies such that the
>average distance from deck to player was 1 meter, and if he/she/it was
>dealing cards at the speed of light (3 x 10**8 m/sec or 3 x 10**8
>cards/sec or 9.4608 x 10**15 cards/year), then he/she/it would succeed
>in dealing a total of 9.4608 x 10**23 cards total or 1.8 x 10**22 hands.
>Comparing this to the 1 in 2 x 10**27 probability calculated by
>Dawkins, we see that a 100 million year old alien who had spent his
>whole life dealing cards at the speed of light would STILL not expect
>to have seen a single perfect deal. This from a man who has written
>a Darwinian treatise on probability.
I have reworked the above paragraph. Someone should check my rework for errors.
Now if Dawkins 100 million year-old alien (10**8 years) was
playing bridge with three of his long-lived buddies such that the
average distance from deck to player was 1 meter, and if he/she/it was
dealing cards at the speed of light (3 x 10**8 m/sec or 3 x 10**8
cards/sec or 9.4608 x 10**15 cards/year), then he/she/it would succeed
in dealing a total of 9.4608 x 10**23 cards total or 1.8 x 10**22 hands.
Comparing this to the 1 in 2.5 x 10**11 probability calculated by
me, we see that a 100 million year old alien who had spent his
whole life dealing cards at the speed of light would have dealt over
7 x 10**10 perfect hands, or just under 2 perfect hands per day. That adds
up to a lot of writing home!
So Dawkins' capabilities concerning probability might not be as poor as you
think. However, I will not accuse you of being "futile in" your "thinking"
or of having a "senseless mind" that was "darkened". You were, arguably,
just a little careless.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@telecom.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------