>Abstract: A continuing discussion of how God might work through 'random'
>chance to provide undetectable intervention in natural phenomenon. In
>particular, I am trying to clarify my ideas further in response to Stephen
>Jones 1/20/95 post. (Sorry I am so slow in responding--I have been very
>busy.)
>
[snipped most of probability stuff]
>I guess what I am trying to say is that the infitesimal
>perturbations that Bill Hamilton refers to could be hidden below the
>detection limits of science in the noise of "random" chance. What you call
>an extraordinary improbable coincidence will most likely depend on your
>philosphical orientation. An atheistic Darwinist attributes it to sheer
>luck; a theistic evolutionist attributes it to God's continous guidance
>through natural law; most progressive (and YEC) creationists would attribute
>it to a transcendental intervention. It looks to me that this example
>really begins to blur the TE/PC boundary. I guess it all depends on how you
>define "transcendental" intervention. (see below)
>
Hello Eddie. I think you have made some interesting observations, however,
I suspect most TE's are going to label your scenario as creation. As I
recall, Dawkins defines a miracle as the occurance of an event with a
very low probability. Unfortunately, I don't think he ever committed
himself to a specific number :-). One has to consider the probabilty
of a single occurence together with the number of trials. If this product
is still on the order of say 10^-40 then Dawkins would most likely
concede that a miracle has taken place. Indeed, even if one considers
an ocean full of organic soup simmering for a billion years it is not
enough to overcome the odds against spontaneous formation of a protein
by chance. If the origin of life requires such an unlikely event, then
one can reasonably conclude that a miracle has occurred. In view of
this, the origin of life purely by chance is no longer considered
viable. As Bradley says on p. 190 of <The Creation Hypothesis>
Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who
work in the field to reject random, accidental aasembly or
fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began.
I think this is an extremely important point to keep in mind when
discussing probability calculations. These calculations deal with
only one scenario for the origin of life, a scenario that hasn't
been seriously considered for around thirty years or so.
So, I think many TE's are likely to believe that there are as yet undiscovered
law-like organizing principles by which life will arise under "suitable"
conditions with probability near 1. Creationists on the other hand will
likely argue that these as yet undiscovered principles will remain
undiscovered since they are products of a healthy imagination and wishful
thinking ;-). Yockey, on the other hand says that its undecidable whether
or not such organizing principles exist :-).
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================